Fearghal McKinney
South Belfast · Social Democratic and Labour Party · Northern Ireland
“We need to do everything we can to bring investment and job opportunities. A prosperity strategy should also include a massive programme of workforce training and skills enhancement.”
“In particular, we want the Programme for Government to adopt a much more joined-up style of government that delivers much greater accountability and transparency and will itself say that it wants Northern Ireland to work.”
“<BR /> <BR />We can point to collective achievements — local government reform among them — but just months ago the echoes of our past threatened our political future, reinforcing the challenges to our delicate political system that the Good Friday Agreement could never have foreseen.”
“Creating much better social cohesion and integration must be another Programme for Government requirement. <BR /> <BR />Health reform, job creation, better infrastructure, creating world-class education and tackling social deprivation are issues on which the SDLP is not prepared to compromise.”
“There are many big challenges facing Northern Ireland, perhaps the biggest of which is to get people into work. It is our job to create the infrastructural and educational opportunities and to maximise those opportunities.”
“It is our job to ensure that our people can and should dare to dream that life can be better; that our children will not be forced to leave these shores for the promise of work in Australia or America because of a failing economy — I referenced the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's latest research; that our health service provides a service th…”
The complete record
Every one of 708 lines we hold for Fearghal McKinney, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 15.
“A Sinn Féin vote in an abstentionist position gives more power to the Tories to cut.”
“I will answer it. Chris Hazzard is enjoying a life here in politics that follows 40 years of violence that his party supported and which the SDLP said had to come to an end. We said that politics was the only answer and that peace was the only answer. During the political process, we said that power-sharing was the way forward. What did Sinn Féin say about that? They rejected it all and came kicking and screaming to it. What did we do through our influence at Westminster? We furthered that proposition, and we helped deliver devolution here. <BR /> <BR />What we need to do now is make sure that devolution is beginning to work. How can we do that when the block grant is being strangled by a Tory system that would be supported by the DUP, by the way? Remember, once again, that it is also being supported by a vote for Sinn Féin.”
“You have done absolutely nothing. We have —”
“And you sat in your seats, all right, but they were in comfy back kitchens somewhere and you had no impact. Are you also saying that, given the opportunity of taking the concerns of the hard-pressed people of Northern Ireland and the vulnerable people of West Belfast, North Belfast, Derry and Strabane right to the heart of those who write the cheques, Chris Hazzard, were he elected in South Down, would not go and defend those people? Not that he will get elected in South Down, now that we are into party election broadcasts.”
“Well, you have heard it here. Sinn Féin would be given the opportunity to vote against war, like the SDLP did.”
“I begin by recognising the opposition to the motion of Sinn Féin. Rosie McCorley stuck rigidly to her view. It has been said by other Members who spoke that perhaps she and Chris Hazzard could have had a conversation with Mickey Brady, who is sitting two seats down, or with Michelle Gildernew in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. <BR /> <BR />The comments from the Sinn Féin Members in this room are fixed; they have said that they will not take their seats. Therefore, are they saying, when the opportunity comes, as it has in the past, for elected Members from Northern Ireland to go to Westminster to vote against war, that Sinn Féin will reject that opportunity?”
“Can the Minister give a commitment, similar to the approach taken in Scotland, that he can relax the exceptionality criteria in the IFR process while the consultation period continues and is adjudicated on to allow access to life-extending drugs?”
“Parties in the Chamber need to start addressing that issue immediately because it will continue to be increasingly unsustainable. <BR /> <BR />We need to do things differently. We need to start with an ambition to succeed, to build and to stand on our own two feet and to pay our way. Bleating to the Tories and noting what we have all known for years and what the SDLP has been saying for years simply will not cut it.”
“It is Oliver Twist economics: "Please sir, can I have some more?". <BR /> <BR />Tilting at windmills will not sort out our problems. Agreeing what those problems are and uniting in a common ambition to resolve them may, however, make a difference. We first of all need to decide that that is what we are doing. At present, we are unsustainable, we are relying on handouts and we are powerless. If you want an answer to why we did not get on the television debates, it lies there. We have our hands out looking for more. That is not power; that is pathetic. We scarcely have an economy because two thirds of what this place produces is based on the block grant and our private sector accounts for around a third. That is unsustainable, and it becomes even more so when the grant is to be cut.”
“Chris Hazzard has a fairy-tale economics approach that we should break the link with Westminster because austerity will always be the dish of the day. It might be a cold dish, but it is a dish worth £10 billion a year and to break it now would bankrupt us completely and send any North/South ambition down the tubes. It is why Máirtín Ó Muilleoir's plans, which he revealed to the BBC's 'Inside Politics' show, to push even more taxes on to those who have properties worth over £400,000, when they may not have the income to cope with them, will not work. He also has plans to tax Coke — I assume that he means the drinking variety — but that will not bail us out either. In the midst of a financial crisis on top of an economic crisis, what is the response of the Sinn Féin think tank?”
“It was our party that pointed out, way back in the summer, that two separate parties going to Stormont would not be able to do any of the work. In any event, it is you guys who have, late in the day, done a U-turn on the Glenshane Pass over welfare. In any event, it is why Mickey Brady was booed from the demo at Daisy Hill. <BR /> <BR />It is not time for noting and appealing; it is time for a real hard look at where our problems lie. There is no point in simply urging an Executive to slice up the cake more favourably when we do not have a big enough cake. There is no point in Gerry Adams urging us to socialise the wealth when we do not have sufficient wealth, and he will not get his hands dirty creating it.”
“You will have plenty of time in the winding up.”
“I will turn it round on him: will you tell me how many pounds you are not going to bring back by not going to Westminster?”
“The party that backed the Budget that led to the cuts wants the unions to stand with it. No wonder it was not too present at the recent rallies. No wonder the Irish National Teachers' Organisation (INTO) members held up placards in front of John O'Dowd at the recent conference, telling him that the DUP/Sinn Féin axis amounted to Tory cuts. The trusted teachers of Ireland know the score.”
“That is an ambition that the SDLP has been spelling out since the day and hour that the Tories came to power but which, in the end, Sinn Féin actually backed. But, once again, Ireland will be free now that we have further noted Tory intentions. In writing this, I have had to ask myself what all the pain and suffering was for if all we can do is sit here in Stormont this afternoon, "note" what the Tories are up to and vainly appeal to them to change their mind. That is what the motion amounts to. That is all that Sinn Féin can come up with: "Let's not go to Westminster, but let's ask the Tories for more. Let's pretend that Sinn Féin did not actually back the cuts". <BR /> <BR />Sinn Féin, as my colleague pointed out, has got the gall to ask the unions and the voluntary and community sector to join it.”
“I welcome the opportunity to participate in today's debate. I have to say that I am disappointed: there are elements of the motion with which I agree, but, as it comes from Sinn Féin, I have to take issue with it. There are a range of ways that you can describe the loss of £1·5 billion to the block grant, and noting it is not one of them. Then again, if you have already voted in favour of such cuts, it is perhaps difficult to move on to stronger language. After the motion, we will all be in a safer place, because Sinn Féin has asked us to note the scale of the cuts. Then we are asked to further note the Tory-led Government's agenda, as if, somehow or other, further noting it will make a dent in that Tory ambition.”
“Can the Minister outline what discussions she has had, if any, with the Irish Government and others on the proposed cuts to the budget of InterTradeIreland?”
“I thank the Minister for his answers thus far. Given that the original question and answer focused on road safety, will the Minister consider 20 mph speed limits around all schools?”
“It is clear that the money is gone, but what other specific strategies does the Minister have in mind that could be employed to build on what she describes as the other good work that has been achieved?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last Tuesday, I was due to be in the Chamber to ask a question of the Agriculture Minister, but, unfortunately, I was not here to do so. I was in the Building but at another meeting that distracted me, so I apologise to you and the House.”
“The Minister referred to actions or measures to improve connectivity. Will she expand on that? What further measures or actions will the Minister put in place to lessen the impact on businesses?”
“I thank the Minister. The SDLP is on record as welcoming the original announcement in October. We welcome this announcement and, in particular, the swift response to the consultation. It is all welcome news. We have some concerns, particularly with timing. Will the Minister confirm that the clock has now started on the 15 to 18 months? What are the implications for phased implementation in that 15 to 18 months? Will some of the phased implementation mean that it will extend beyond the timetable that the Minister has outlined?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. The Member will recall that the First Minister and others in the Chamber laboured at great length the cost to the health service. Is it not true that the cost to the health service is partly because of long-term unemployment and deprivation and that investing in those areas sub-subregionally would make a difference to the overall bill?”
“I thank the Minister for her answers thus far. Is she in discussion with other Departments to open up access in other ways, particularly in other elements of public transport, to ensure maximum access and to link stadia to town centres?”
“I thank the Minister. How can the generation proposals take account of best practice in building a shared future? Is that one of the defined objectives?”
“Does the Member agree that the scenario he was painting was one against the backdrop that existed before partition?”
“I ask whether the motion simply opens up the door to anything — whatever you are having yourself — as long as it is pro-austerity and is forcing people to pay more tax, which will ultimately come off the block grant.”
“Sorry, Mr Speaker. <BR /> <BR />Let us have honest debate and transparency. The Health Minister went on to say:”
“<BR /> <BR />I am aware that the Speaker may be about to say that I am straying off the motion, but I do not believe that I am. The context here is —”
“The context in which he said that was one in which we would get perhaps less or around the figure of £14 million that we were already getting this year. There was certainly a threat to the money, which was sufficient for us all to say that the Minister is right and that we should put our hand in our pocket and endorse prescription charges, in the way in which the motion describes them, in its widest sense, as a progressive tax. What did the Committee learn last week from the companies that are linked to the PPRS scheme? We learned that £30 million will be available in 2015 for specific drugs for conditions beyond just cancer. Therefore, in reality, we could have a specialist drugs fund in Northern Ireland tomorrow without there being any implications. Let us have the progressive prescription charges debate in that context.”
“After many months of campaigning, vulnerable cancer patients thought that they were getting an answer. Instead, however, the Health Minister linked their issue to a prescription charge. <BR /> <BR />I will read out what Mr Wells said in the Chamber last week. When talking about the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme (PPRS) money, which is additional money that is coming into the system, he said:”
“That may be part of it, but the motion opens the door much more widely than that. <BR /> <BR />After six years of post-recession hardship, the economy is on its knees. We need proper answers, but not pro-austerity answers such as those Sinn Féin is advocating. <BR /> <BR />Last week, I understood the Chairperson of the Health Committee to be opposing what the Health Minister was saying about prescriptions charges, yet the motion, potentially at least, would allow for prescription charges. Is that a progressive tax? Perhaps we can hear from Sinn Féin on that. <BR /> <BR />Instead of this hokey-cokey approach to politics, we need an open, honest and transparent debate on revenue generation. Nothing exemplifies that more than the issue of prescription charges that was brought to the House last week.”
“What does "progressive options" mean? Perhaps Sinn Féin could have spelt that out in the text of the motion. It can be summed up in two words: "more" and "tax". I take on board what Mr Bradley and Mr Girvan said, which is that, if we go down that route, it will come off the main Budget anyway. That question also has to be answered. <BR /> <BR />Northern Ireland is in an equally —”
“Thank you very much. I accept that homework has to be done, but I am not sure that the motion articulates that just as much. It is more open than that. I will get to that point in a second. <BR /> <BR />The motion refers to the need to:”
“Does it mean that the party is for water charges? Does it mean that it is for rates increases? What does it refer to when it talks of "local revenue" and the "local budget"? Is it proposing to increase whatever tax it is possible to increase in the Assembly and whatever tax it can think of at council level? If there is an answer, it is not in the motion. For that and other reasons, we will, of course, oppose the motion. The homework has to be done first. <BR /> <BR />What Sinn Féin is saying is that —”
“I welcome the opportunity to participate in today's debate. The negative implications of the 2015-16 Budget will be felt far and wide. The SDLP, as the only party that voted against both the draft and final Budget, recognised this. With that in mind, the impact that the Budget will have on health-care delivery is very important. The party has made it very clear that it is concerned about expenditure in the health service and worries, for example, about simply jumping to a prescription charge agenda while not addressing the wastage within that very service. I will return to that later. <BR /> <BR />First, I wish to address the motion, which is, I have to say, vague. It writes itself a blank cheque by listing or endorsing revenue-raising options that may be proposed in the future. I do not understand where Sinn Féin is coming from.”
“I thank the Minister. Minister, there are some who are trying to divert attention from the Donaldson review to the issue of hospitals and the number of hospitals. You will be aware that the people of Downpatrick, south Down and the wider area gave their answer to that in Downpatrick on Saturday. <BR /> <BR />The Donaldson report contained other very important issues, including an underpowered commissioning system and a TYC system that is not working. Given that the funding for TYC was to come from monitoring rounds and that the Minister maybe did not apply for it in the January monitoring round — certainly, he did not get it — is the system now not only not making progress but in reverse?”
“What practical guarantees can the Minister give today and throughout the process that any concept of a prescription charge will relate to specific cancer and specialist drug provision? <BR /> <BR />I have one other comment, if I may. The Department is in dispute with pharmacies over moneys, and they find themselves very stretched. Who will collect that? Will they get remunerated for doing so?”
“The SDLP welcomes the announcement in large part. It is a tribute to the many people who have campaigned against what is a fundamental inequality in that many of these drugs have been available elsewhere in the UK but not here. I welcome, as a point of principle, the fact that the Minister has made a number of announcements. The SDLP will have reservations about tying it to prescription charges, and we will reflect those in any consultation. <BR /> <BR />In relation to openness and transparency, I note that the Minister has not revealed any details around the PPRS. Will the public not need to be doubly convinced? The PPRS was about making drugs available to people, yet it has been used elsewhere in the system.”
“Can the Member explain how what he has just said is consistent with his party's decision last week to vote through the bedroom tax?”
“I thank the Minister for his answers. The fund is described as a leverage fund, but will he tell the House what the key strategic drivers are to enable that leverage to happen and inform the specific projects that would ultimately be picked?”
“Given the DUP's propensity for dotting i's and crossing t's, will the Member care to speculate what would have happened had the shoe been on the other foot?”
“<BR /> <BR />As we make decisions today, I reiterate that we can allocate money, but we will not know that it will fundamentally put the patient first. We need to have assurances in that regard.”
“If the system does not understand the flow through the system, how can it run a business at all? You need, fundamentally, to understand the flows in any organisation to be able to cope, particularly in the health system. <BR /> <BR />Most concerning is the fact that the block grant from Westminster is continuously being constrained, and, as we go into the next Budget, that will ultimately limit the possibility of doing something proactive to deal with the pressures facing the system. Ultimately, it is imperative that we begin to realise the root causes of the pressure on our health service and that we have a properly financed, measured and strategically focused reform plan in place that will facilitate meaningful outcomes to ensure that we have a health and social care system that is fit for the 21st century.”
“Some £50 million was spent on bank and agency staff. There were 360,000 cancellations of hospital appointments by patients and the hospital system itself, and we have seen how we had to reach out to the private sector to perform operations as a result, which is funding them twice. However, we have now run out of road even in that context, as I reflected earlier; we have simply had to cancel elective operations in circumstances of extreme stress. <BR /> <BR />One of the other issues is patient flow. The Health Committee is examining workforce planning and, even at this very early stage, has discovered that the hospital health system does not know how many people are employed in GP surgeries. It does not do a real-time analysis of the number of people waiting each day for particular surgeries.”
“Even DUP Members have joined campaigns on, for example, Dalriada Hospital and the Bangor minor injuries unit, although they managed to overturn that decision, and in other areas. We have seen consistency among political opinion here on the need for funding in the community side. <BR /> <BR />It is pivotal that we examine whether decisions made by the trusts to save money will have further negative consequences down the line. We must get assurances that any decision taken complies with section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to ensure that proper consultations and screenings are implemented and that patient needs are fully appreciated and taken on board. <BR /> <BR />We have talked before here about the opportunities for efficiency savings in the service. There is significant wastage.”
“That is slightly different language, but, once again, the direction of travel is the same. We have not invested in the community side, which is the side that can take the weight off less expensively and make provision for people closer to their home, yet we have stripped out on the hospital side, leading to two pressures there. <BR /> <BR />All say the same thing, which is that the community side of health care is not being properly funded. We must reject the Minister's claims that the crisis that we face is not unique to here. In essence, it is, because we have followed the UK path. We must also look at whether the projected £113 million in trusts' efficiency savings are counterstrategic to the TYC plan.”
“Where have we heard that before? We have heard it here before and experience it here every day. Once again, we will vote through money today for the health service, but we cannot guarantee that it will be spent well, certainly not on the basis of policy provisions copied from the rest of the country. <BR /> <BR />Finally, an additional external reference is that the King's Fund think tank referred to the fact that NHS organisation was disastrous:”
“Where have we heard that before? We heard it here about Transforming Your Care, but there is no money available to make it happen. <BR /> <BR />The Committee said that the health service:”
“Once again, we can vote money through today, but is there a guarantee that it will be spent well? <BR /> <BR />Two other reports have come out in the last few weeks. Some people here say, "Sure it is happening over in England", almost as if we should blame it on a general failing here and in England. The reason why it is happening here is that we have adopted some of the same policy considerations. That is why it is happening here and in England. The Westminster Public Accounts Committee has done some significant examination of the issues, and it says that radical change is needed in its system to the way health care is provided, including:”