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 44 of 44.
“That is less money that is being taken off criminals. We know that the proceeds of that go to communities, but the important thing is that many criminals can only be dealt with effectively by hitting them where it hurts, and that is quite often in the pocket. We are facing international criticism, as has been referred to, with the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child having expressed strong concerns about the absence of necessary powers to effectively address child exploitation. <BR /> <BR />Our police resources are under strain, and we have all heard the debate around the Budget in recent days. The effect of that and the failure to introduce the NCA has been to skew resources to the PSNI that could have been met nationally by the NCA.”
“<BR /> <BR />There are international issues that require an international response, and the purpose of the NCA is to connect our neighbourhood policing to our national policing and our international crime-fighting agencies. The effect of the NCA not operating was explained in more detail recently by the Minister when he told us that there are examples involving child abuse, money laundering and drug importation where the responses were arguably less effective than they could have been had we been able to join up right from the very ground, from neighbourhood policing through national policing in Northern Ireland and right across the UK, reaching right across Europe and beyond its borders. <BR /> <BR />We have seen an effect on asset recovery. The police are unable to target the assets of criminals.”
“I will come on to accountability. <BR /> <BR />The Justice Minister has said that there is now clear evidence of a major gap in our ability to tackle serious crime. We are not isolated or immune from these problems in Northern Ireland. There is, as others have said, people trafficking, extortion, money laundering, robbery, drug smuggling and many other serious crimes going on. There are people in this House who, by their actions, are assisting all those crimes to take place. Let us not put too fine a point on it: there are people in this place who are assisting and allowing those crimes to proceed against our citizens in Northern Ireland. Shame upon you.”
“I welcome the debate, and I want to make it very clear that we are supporting the motion and opposing the amendment. <BR /> <BR />The motion does give us an opportunity to debunk some of the myths and, indeed, fears that have been created around this particular organisation. There is absolutely no doubt that the absence of a fully functioning National Crime Agency is negatively impacting on our ability to deal with serious and organised crime. Clear, precise and statistical evidence is available and has been since the National Crime Agency came into being on 7 October 2013. What bit of "Since 2013, you have had time to sort all of this out" do you not understand?”
“I welcome the Minister and congratulate him on his appointment. What hope can we have that, in the delivery of new social housing programmes in Northern Ireland, you will put sharing and integration front and centre as a policy and delivery model?”
“I thank the Minister. A great deal of work has been done by the Minister and his Department to develop apprenticeships in engineering. What further work is he doing to develop apprenticeships and to demonstrate to young people particularly that apprenticeships are of a high value equivalent to degrees?”
“I hope that he will answer the Member's questions about the constituent in East Antrim and that those matters can be resolved. Perhaps the siting is not the best, and perhaps good advice can be given. It seems to me to be rather heavy-handed to go down an enforcement route when advice and guidance given properly in the first instance could have obviated the problem. I encourage the Minister to look seriously at the charge and why he is not taking control of that charge. If he does not want control of that charge, surely he must have an interest in who is taking that money and what it is that they are actually doing with it. <BR /> <BR />Finally, I think that we need to sort out the whole issue of the NIEA's responsibility, local councils' responsibility and the police's responsibility when it comes to tyres that end up on bonfires.”
“<BR /> <BR />I say to the Minister that perhaps we would not have a problem with tyres on bonfires if we had a proper disposal scheme, proper traceability and proper accountability. Therefore, if a tyre ended up on a bonfire, the NIEA would know where it came from. It should not be that NIEA gets into confrontation with communities about trying to remove them. It should be that it prosecutes the person who got it to the bonfire site in the first place; the person who let it out of their store and made it available for the bonfire. <BR /> <BR />I am pleased that Mr Wilson secured the debate this evening. He raised an important issue, and I am seriously concerned that the Minister now deals with it in a comprehensive way.”
“I have had letters from people who have to live beside bonfires. These are people in communities that support bonfires and who enjoy the spectacle of the fire, but they are living in fear, for themselves and their children, because of the pall of intense black toxic smoke that rises from those bonfires. It is vital that the NIEA gets a grip on that. However, no, it would rather send me letters saying how difficult it is and that it is not actually the prime body responsible. <BR /> <BR />The NIEA passes the buck to the council, the council passes the buck to the police, and it goes back round in circles again. We need a clear, round-table meeting — I recently met the police — between NIEA, environmental health staff and the police to thrash out how we will deal with the problems.”
“It does not seem to be able to control the disposal of tyres on a large-scale basis. It does not seem to be able to control, or want to control, or have any idea about, how the charge may be levied and who looks after it. I will ask a direct question to the Minister and I hope that he will deal with it: where does the money go? <BR /> <BR />It seems that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. I have correspondence between the NIEA and me and between the PSNI and me in respect of tyres on bonfires. Other Members have referred to the height of bonfires. Whether we support bonfires is not the subject of this evening's debate. It is about the content of the bonfire. I do not think that you could find anything more polluting, distressing or concerning to my constituents.”
“I defer to the Member's greater knowledge in relation to the sum. However, we know the damage that tyres can cause when, as others have made reference to, they catch fire in illegal dump sites. We have not even come to the issue of bonfires and how that disposal causes serious problems, but I will come to that aspect. <BR /> <BR />I think it is important that the Department comes back to us and tells us how it is going to rectify the issues that Mr Wilson raised about somebody who wanted to set up a business, the appropriate advice they were given in respect of that, and whether they had planning permission. Those are all important issues for that particular constituent. To be told one thing and then be prosecuted for another seems to me to be eminently unfair. <BR /> <BR />The NIEA further compounds its problems.”
“The Minister's Department successfully — at least I hope it is successfully — administers a plastic bag tax scheme. If it can do that, why on earth can it not administer a disposal charge for tyres, which are infinitely more traceable than plastic bags, into landfill sites? There are not that many tyre dealers across Northern Ireland compared to a number of years ago. The businesses have got larger and there is less backstreet exchange of tyres going on. Therefore, it is not beyond the wit of the NIEA or the Department to come up with an appropriate registration scheme that accurately tracks the life of a tyre.”
“I hope that he will set out some clear pathways and clear intent on his part for how the issue of the collection and recycling of tyres will now be tackled by the Environment Agency. If there is need for change to regulations, I hope that he will bring those changes forward. <BR /> <BR />Members have referred to the disposal charge. I recently paid the disposal charge for the replacement of four tyres on my car. However, we are told — at least, as I understand it, the Environment Committee was told in response to its questions to the NIEA and the Minister — that you did not administer the scheme, you did not know where the money went and, if you were asked to administer the scheme, it would be impossible.”
“I welcome the opportunity to have the debate. We have heard from Mr Wilson and Mr Beggs that there may be two sides to the argument that has given rise to the debate. Mr Wilson is absolutely right to bring the debate to us, whatever the rights and wrongs of a particular constituency issue, because there is a serious issue around the enforcement and disposal aspect of dealing with tyres, whether they are in the countryside or urban areas, and around the whole way in which the Environment Agency is being set up to deal with those matters. <BR /> <BR />As others have mentioned, the Environment Committee, as we know, has tried to untangle the web of how tyres should be disposed of safely and successfully recycled. Very little action seems to have come from that. That is why I am glad to see the Minister here this evening.”
“Therefore, I challenge those parties in the Executive who continue to block reform to face up to their responsibilities, be prepared to take challenging decisions and let the Bill come forward so that we can begin to retake control of the issue and agree a way forward that works for all of the citizens in Northern Ireland.”
“<BR /> <BR />I encourage the Minister and the Department not only to bring forward the Bill but to bring forward further proposals for changes to help mitigate the issues that are rightly of concern to all Members. Not addressing the issue further hits the poor and the most vulnerable in society. Cuts of £87 million will surely have a negative impact on the provision of health services, education, child poverty interventions, upskilling, employment schemes and job creation. That is what you are holding back. All those things would help people to escape welfare dependency, improve real-life outcomes and create opportunities. We should not be handing money back to the Treasury in fines, which we could be using to invest further in those areas. <BR /> <BR />Finally, this is about facing up to reality.”
“I have seen no evidence from any of the parties that are opposing the motion in the Chamber today. I suspect that that is because there is no plan and that, other than to continue to run away from reality and to wave placards, they have no meaningful plans, no proposals and no way forward. <BR /> <BR />In contrast, on the table there is a package of concessions that is superior to what is being implemented in the rest of the UK. If we move forward with those proposals, we can avoid the £87 million of penalties and look at what additional measures we may be able to take to mitigate the most negative elements of welfare reform. That is the challenge that faces us.”
“The negative impact is already being seen, as we can see from comments by the Justice Minister in the 'Belfast Telegraph' today, for example. Quite rightly, they are preparing for very difficult days ahead, should the reforms not be agreed. Members need to accept reality along with the fact that there is a finite amount of money available. Members and parties can promise their constituents everything under the sun, but the cake is only a certain size. What is expected of us, in this Chamber, is to solve problems not exacerbate them with meaningless campaigns. <BR /> <BR />I ask Members who continue to block the reforms this: what are your detailed proposals, and where is your master plan for getting round the huge financial dependency on transfer payments from Westminster?”
“— as Ministers quite rightly prepare for difficult days ahead —”
“They are already having a negative impact —”
“I agree with Mr Wilson. <BR /> <BR />The penalties are real. All £87 million of them are real.”
“No. <BR /> <BR />I argue — I have heard your argument before — that they have a greater duty to show responsibility and leadership by working for the well-being of their constituents, whom they are clearly putting in second place to stubborn ideology. That is what Sinn Fein is doing. Now, to rub salt in the wounds, Sinn Féin's grandstanding is aided by the mini-me SDLP and an abstentionist Ulster Unionist Party. Former Ulster Unionist leaders must have been spinning in their graves when the party announced abstention in this historic Chamber today. They are hurting the poorest and most vulnerable by squeezing essential public services. That is the outcome of the opposition. The penalties are real.”
“That is what we in Alliance and others in the House did. However, there are those who did not go to make the arguments or walk through the Lobbies. I know that members of Sinn Féin will say, "Oh, we have a mandate not to take our seats".”
“I oppose the motion and support the amendment. <BR /> <BR />My colleagues and I have no particular appetite for the full force of the reforms that are taking place in the rest of the United Kingdom. We recognise that there has been a negative impact in Great Britain, but we also recognise where our block grant comes from. That is something that the party to my right seems to completely and utterly misunderstand. It comes from Westminster. We do not have the resources in Northern Ireland to maintain an independent welfare system. Therefore, we have to work on the basis of parity with Northern Ireland variances that can be and have been negotiated on top of that. To argue otherwise is to reject political and economic reality. <BR /> <BR />The place to oppose welfare cuts was at Westminster.”
“On that basis, I am not inclined to support the amendments.”
“<BR /> <BR />Like other Members, I will listen carefully to what the Minister says, but when officials came to the Committee, they persuaded me and, I hope, others that the course that the Department and the Minister propose to take is the right one. I hope that Mr Elliott understands that I value the amendments that he has tabled. I am fascinated by the debate, and I think that it is important that we listen to all the arguments and to what the Minister will tell us. <BR /> <BR />It would be unfortunate if we were to pass amendments that, on the surface, have good intent but that would actually have the effect of reversing that good intent. I believe that the Bill has been carefully designed as a package to work well within the existing general statutory framework and that the amendments have a potential risk of damaging that design.”
“That, coupled with the fact that the Minister is already subject to direction by Ministers under the general law — Members referred to that — has the potential to lead us into very difficult and perhaps even dangerous territory. The Minister could become involved in individual decisions about granting legal aid. That would be contrary to the recommendations of the access to justice review, which envisaged a system in which decisions would be taken without the involvement of the Minister. Similarly, in Mr Elliott's amendment No 7, the proposed removal of the Department's obligation to publish any directions given when the power to issue directions exists in general law has the potential to compromise openness and transparency. That, again, is contrary to the recommendations of the review and the wider strategic objectives of the Bill.”
“I hope that the Minister will be able to explain that to the House in much more cogent detail than me, and other Members asked the Minister for a clear and open explanation of that point. That, I hope, will assist Mr Elliott's understanding of the import of what the Minister and the legislation are trying to achieve. I hope, therefore, that it will encourage Mr Elliott to support the Minister's proposals. <BR /> <BR />Mr Elliott's amendment Nos 3 to 12 focus on preventing the Minister from issuing directions to the director of legal aid casework about the carrying out of the director's functions. Those amendments have the potential to cause concern. Amendment Nos 5 and 7 are key. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 5 would remove the instruction that the Department must not give directions about carrying out those functions in individual cases.”
“That is very important, so I value the amendments that Members table. <BR /> <BR />Mr Elliott's concerns regarding the designation of a director are important. However, in the Department's evidence to the Committee during the clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill, it confirmed that there are a number of ways in which posts could be filled that would not prevent external recruitment. The person recruited will be appointed as a civil servant, but the point at which he or she will be appointed as a civil servant will be a matter for the process, and he or she could be appointed as a civil servant after his or her appointment. The words "must designate a civil servant" do not prevent the appointment of someone who is recruited externally and who then becomes a civil servant.”
“I place on record my thanks to the staff of the Committee, who have worked with us and assisted us in the process of getting to where we are today. I also thank all those who came to us, from the Department and other places, to talk about the content and import of the Bill. I thank Mr Elliott for bringing his amendments to the House. As Mr Maginness just said, these are complex areas of law and it is important that the House does what it is doing today: debate the issues and points and come to a conclusion. We are doing what we were sent here to do by the electorate: to legislate.”
“Thank you, Minister, for the excellent cooperative work that you are doing with your Irish counterpart. In the statement, you made reference to a forensic partnership strategy between Northern Ireland, Ireland and Scotland. Is that new or ongoing work between those forensic agencies?”
“Finally, behaviour of that kind by a Minister should be neither condoned nor tolerated. Ultimately, it is for the public to judge the content of the report, regardless of any petition of concern. The Assembly should strive for a higher standard, because the people of Northern Ireland deserve better. I will support the noting of the report today.”
“A single party should not be able to override the wishes of the Assembly as a whole.”
“The petition of concern mechanism, which now frequently makes a mockery of Assembly oversight, should be abolished and replaced by a majority-weighted voting system as part of a process towards achieving the level of accountability expected in a normally functioning democracy.”
“<BR /> <BR />Today's motion simply calls on the Assembly to note the contents of a first phase report, which includes an unfettered minority report. The use of a petition of concern raises more questions about DUP Members and what they are trying to hide and suppress. If you have a valid and reasoned case to make, why not come to the House and do so without resorting to an unnecessary veto? I suspect that Members to my left have nothing more to add to the Minister's account of events, which the Committee found unbelievable. <BR /> <BR />The report's findings and the DUP's concerted effort to suppress them demonstrate the need for an urgent reboot of these institutions.”
“I find it extremely alarming that the Department would adopt a position based on the Minister's beliefs, especially when they fly in the face of clear, factual evidence. <BR /> <BR />Following the events of the last several months, this looks like the final brush strokes in the picture of an utterly dysfunctional Government on top of the failure to manage budgets and effectively agree on ways forward for the most challenging issues in our society. We can now add "Minister found to have deliberately misled Committee". Such behaviour would trigger serious repercussions for Ministers in other parts of these islands. Sadly for Northern Ireland, the public and many of us in the House have come to expect petitions of concern rather than proper accountability, and, once again, the DUP has used the former to protect one of its own.”
“I go further in saying that, given the overwhelming evidence that the meeting was with Turkington's, asking the Committee to accept that the Minister believed otherwise is insulting to Members' intelligence, to the House and, most importantly, to the public. <BR /> <BR />Records were also changed to reflect the Minister's position, seemingly with no challenge from departmental officials. Yet, the Civil Service competency framework lists "allowing inaccurate records" as an example of ineffectual behaviour, even at the most junior levels. It is therefore difficult to understand why senior officials allowed the Minister's position to be sustained. There was no ambiguity about the facts and no options.”
“Very briefly, I add my thanks not only to the Chairperson but particularly to the Committee staff, who worked so hard and so diligently and so impartially on our behalf in delivering the report. <BR /> <BR />During the first phase of the inquiry, the Social Development Committee was asked to accept the Minister's account of whom he met on 16 April 2012, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. We essentially had two options: either we accepted that the Minister had deliberately misled us or we had uncovered a staggering level of incompetence. On the weight of evidence considered and because the Committee could simply not believe that the Minister could display this level of incompetence, we found that the statement on whom he thought he had met was deliberately misleading.”