Claire Hanna
South Belfast · Social Democratic and Labour Party · Northern Ireland
“I thank the Minister for his answers so far and for the announcement of the inquiry. In common with other Opposition parties, we have been calling for a long number of weeks for an inquiry under the 2005 Act. I am glad of the acknowledgement of that.”
“My question was about a contingency or plan B, as the challenge was entirely foreseeable. Has the Minister given any thought to publishing an anonymised list? Such a list could contain some geographical detail, the date, the output and the payment, so that we can get a sense of the levels of applicants that are credible and not credible.”
“— it is so important we let the people who have put all those qualities into the public discourse know they have been validated and that the redress they are entitled to is delivered to them.”
“I thank all those who have spoken. Like others, I attended the launch of the report on Friday and have spent some time since reading it. I think that, for everybody there, it was a very difficult few hours — even for those of us who did not live through those experiences.”
“<BR /> <BR />Colin McGrath, when moving the motion, referred to the appalling shooting last night of a public servant and member of the PSNI as an illustration of what we have failed to eliminate and what we are definitely not returning to, but, as we said, that opportunity has been squandered.”
“<BR /> <BR />Colin McGrath made the point that, despite the disappointment and the stop and start of progress, if we found ourselves 20 years back, we would still push to try and deliver the Good Friday Agreement, because the fact is the that core analysis of John Hume's three strands still stands.”
The complete record
Every one of 479 lines we hold for Claire Hanna, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 10.
“I thank the Minister for his answers so far and for the announcement of the inquiry. In common with other Opposition parties, we have been calling for a long number of weeks for an inquiry under the 2005 Act. I am glad of the acknowledgement of that. Better late than never, although it is a regret that people are going to the polls without at least some of the facts being in the public domain, free of spin. I also acknowledge that you have taken on board some of the feedback that we submitted yesterday on the terms of reference. <BR /> <BR />In the background, Minister, you state that it was your officials who unearthed this financial calamity. Are you satisfied that your officials and, latterly, you have done enough to uncover this, address it and rectify it in the time that you have been in the post?”
“My question was about a contingency or plan B, as the challenge was entirely foreseeable. Has the Minister given any thought to publishing an anonymised list? Such a list could contain some geographical detail, the date, the output and the payment, so that we can get a sense of the levels of applicants that are credible and not credible.”
“Everybody in the Chamber has to finish the job and deliver the redress and support that Sir Anthony Hart made clear they are entitled to.”
“I think the possibility that we will show them the answers and leave it out of reach for much longer is not acceptable. The state has let them down too many times before and cannot continue to do so. The publication of the report and the direction of travel of the recommendations will not come as a surprise to any of us. The Executive commissioned the report, and I think the provisions should have been enacted, as should the proposals to widen the scope of inquiry to people who were abused in clerical settings outside institutions and those in mother-and-baby homes, which were not in the scope of the inquiry. <BR /> <BR />In finishing, I commend absolutely those who had the bravery to tell their story, and I hope they feel vindicated.”
“I think it is important as a reminder of that failure and of the idea that this cannot happen again. <BR /> <BR />Sir Anthony Hart made specific recommendations for practical provision in health, education and social support, which many people will require. He recommended the need for a commission and an advocate to make sure that those who need that support can access it. He also made recommendations for financial redress, and, as others said, literally no sum could compensate people for the life opportunities and the happiness that were denied them. But it is very long past time they had some comfort and the security of that financial compensation. <BR /> <BR />The publication of the report is a moment survivors have waited too long for.”
“— it is so important we let the people who have put all those qualities into the public discourse know they have been validated and that the redress they are entitled to is delivered to them. They were children who were entrusted into the care of the state and deprived of that very fundamental human need for love, and they suffered the systematic sexual, physical and psychological abuse that others referred to. <BR /> <BR />Justice Hart's recommendations were very clear and reasonable, and it is important we deliver on them as soon as possible, a public apology is given by an Executive and those institutions involved and a memorial is built here, hopefully, in the grounds. I think that would be a symbol of society's public and permanent repentance, but I understand it would be difficult for many survivors to come to see.”
“I agree with that, and I agree, of course, that —”
“What those children were put through is an absolute inversion of the values that most people here will try to put into practice in their faith life or home life. The thought that so many people who perpetrated that abuse did so when they were entrusted as faith institutions makes it all the more appalling, as was the evidence that, in some cases, congregations knew about the abuse and failed to stop it.”
“That was over seven long years ago and after many years of campaigning by the survivors. They saw the inquiry as the next piece of the jigsaw after the Ryan report, which detailed grotesque and systematic abuse in over 200 institutions in the Republic. That report was a watershed moment in Irish politics; it led to a fundamental changing of the relationship between Church and state, and it set the ball rolling for some of the redress that is required here. It provided some catharsis in society by allowing people to have their story heard. <BR /> <BR />The Hart report, like Ryan, is a horrifying account of so many children's lives being shattered. I read it as a mum, as a Catholic and, like most people, just as a human.”
“I thank all those who have spoken. Like others, I attended the launch of the report on Friday and have spent some time since reading it. I think that, for everybody there, it was a very difficult few hours — even for those of us who did not live through those experiences. It has to be said how much the strength, dignity and determination of the campaigners came through on Friday, as it has for many years. It was clear that, for a lot of people, that experience opened up decades of suffering. It must have taken incredible bravery to go to that inquiry and tell your story. That has to be commended, as have, as Mr Poots said, those who facilitated and worked in the inquiry. <BR /> <BR />Friday's report was a very long time coming; it was my mother, Carmel Hanna, who proposed the motion here in 2009 to set up an inquiry.”
“— and the electorate have the opportunity to make that choice.”
“The agreement and its outworkings, driven by those people who want to work them, could deliver a very different future. <BR /> <BR />I did take some hope from Mr O'Dowd's comments that he has been proud to share power. I think that has been lacking — parties wanting to share power and who see power-sharing as a virtue and not just something they do because, as Mr Douglas Beattie has said, the law told them they had to do it. To make it work, we have to restore mutual trust. That was what the Good Friday Agreement was about: the belief that getting around the table and working together in all our common interests would build up trust. We have not seen that trust build up over the last 20 years, but we believe it still can —”
“<BR /> <BR />Looking ahead, it is difficult to see where we go from here, but we believe the foundation stones are still there in the three strands of the Good Friday Agreement, and in the unwritten fourth strand in my head about the European dimension. The alternatives just do not bear thinking about. We are not going back to what we had last night, and we certainly do not want to go back to direct rule by this Government. <BR /> <BR />Briefly, I will reference the SDLP's joint authority proposals — joint authority, not joint sovereignty, because we firmly respect the principle of consent. I will be very clear that our first, second, third, fourth and fifth preference before that is to re-establish power-sharing and local administration here.”
“We just do not feel they have been adequately defended by your enablers in Sinn Féin. While all structures can evolve, the various degradations in Stormont House, St Andrews and so on were not agreed by all parties, and certainly were not endorsed by the people North and South of these islands as the Good Friday Agreement was. Those parties thought they knew better and decided to go it alone. We saw the outworkings of that in the Programme for Government negotiations in May, and we are now seeing the very grim final outworkings when all of the criticisms we made of governance and how it was and was not being done here are now being restated by those people who dismissed our criticism.”
“<BR /> <BR />Colin McGrath made the point that, despite the disappointment and the stop and start of progress, if we found ourselves 20 years back, we would still push to try and deliver the Good Friday Agreement, because the fact is the that core analysis of John Hume's three strands still stands. Its delivery and relationships within Northern Ireland and on an east-west and North/South basis have not been fully implemented. If we could return to those principles, we would be in much better shape. Those principles have not been in evidence in the Government because, effectively, the Government have been driven by people who never really bought into them. The DUP has — and, at least, has been open about it — been attempting to rewrite and remake those structures for its own purposes.”
“I speak for the SDLP only. I agree: I do not feel that anybody who is elected here to any of the 18 Westminster seats is a better Irishman than Parnell, Davitt or many other Irishmen who went and represented at Westminster. Wherever our future is being discussed, the SDLP will be there to deliver on our pledges. <BR /> <BR />As I said, Stephen Farry raised the issue of ugly scaffolding. We are up for dealing with that as well. Gerry Kelly gave a very spirited defence of the Good Friday Agreement and all that has not been realised that would have rung a little bit truer had it not been from a party that has not been driving the Government for the past decade.”
“<BR /> <BR />Mike Nesbitt and Stephen Farry were among a number of Members to raise the key issue of Brexit and its potential to do fundamental damage, obviously not just to our economy, but to our politics. I think that tomorrow morning, around 9.30 am, we will probably be a lot clearer on some of the political and constitutional issues. Obviously, we hope that the Supreme Court reinforces the authority of the devolved institutions here and elsewhere. If it does, and I hope that it does, it would be an appalling dereliction of duty if we were not here to take up that responsibility and give that voice. Any talks that follow —”
“In the context of the motion's being about the talks that will follow the election, and to prevent there being a second election simply because if this one will not solve anything, another one certainly will not, we do not feel that there is a window of opportunity. We are very happy to come to back to it, hopefully, in these refreshed institutions. <BR /> <BR />I just want to pick up on another few points. Chris was in quite constructive mode but still probably failed to grasp the fundamentals of the equality that was envisaged in the Good Friday Agreement in his rejection of 50:50 recruitment, which, as Mike Nesbitt said, resulted in a Police Service that the whole community has been able to buy into. Again, that is something that I think that we could not do without.”
“<BR /> <BR />We definitely appreciate the intention of the Green Party amendment and are for maximum civic participation, including the re-establishment of the Civic Forum and engaging people in the ways that we can; but we do feel that the period after the election is do or die. We do not have a very long time. We need to get governance back up and running to deal with a lot of the issues that we have been discussing, not least Brexit and delivering for survivors of abuse and victims. With the best will in the world, even though the model in the South has been very constructive, we do not see how a constitutional convention can be enacted and delivered within the very narrow window that we have.”
“I do agree; I was going to come to that. Stephen Farry raised a number of points about the ugly scaffolding. We have said that there can and should be an evolution of that. I think that John McCallister did us all a service when he put some of those mechanisms on the table. We all engaged with that in good faith. It is something that can be revisited. However, I have to agree with Alex Maskey: I do not feel that we can eliminate some of those mechanisms. I believe that the proof of the pudding has been in the eating; how government has been done and how minorities have been treated. We are up for that discussion but I have not seen a perfect alternative proposal yet.”
“<BR /> <BR />Colin McGrath, when moving the motion, referred to the appalling shooting last night of a public servant and member of the PSNI as an illustration of what we have failed to eliminate and what we are definitely not returning to, but, as we said, that opportunity has been squandered. That is a lot of the story of the last 60 years of politics here, and certainly the last 20 years. We think that that is due not to the fundamental design but to the failure to live up to the spirit and substance of the agreement in a lot of the everyday decisions; the failure, over the years, on the big picture stuff around weapons, policing, respect and parity; and the failure to make any meaningful progress on North/South, with the North/South Ministerial Council now watered down on the sidelines.”
“<BR /> <BR />Nobody said that it was perfect, and I think that that is very clear. I am not quite old enough to be able to dig out memoirs of Oliver Napier and Brian Faulkner, who, I suspect, had their relationship difficulties as well in getting things up and running, but I do not think that we can ignore the external context in those early days of devolution, which was the overplaying of the decommissioning hand and the DUP screaming in the windows of the Assembly. I think that Mallon and Trimble did an incredible job with the progress that they made at that time.”
“Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Like others, I wish you well in life after this Assembly, and I hope that we will not all join you in life after this Assembly in the next couple of months. <BR /> <BR />I thank all who participated in the debate, which has been an important review of the principles. As Members have said, it is a bit sad perhaps that we are restating and discussing those principles only now. I feel old because Phillip Logan was only nine years old back then, and I was just coming 18, but I remember that sense of possibility and optimism, which, it is fair to say, has not been present in this Building in recent months and is absent from our politics, but we do not believe that it has to be, and nobody will lose sight of how far we have come.”
“However, it includes very large bonuses in the NAMA portfolio and fur-lined jobs for paramilitary bosses. <BR /> <BR />It is sad that half the Executive has not bothered to turn up, but it is clear that this has been 10 years wasted, in which Northern Ireland could have progressed and used to prepare itself to weather the current difficulties in global politics. That opportunity has been wasted by this Executive. Although none of us doubts that we are in a better place than we were during the Troubles — I agree with Mr Stalford on that — it is sad to see that time wasted. <BR /> <BR />We must all send out the message to a browbeaten public that there are alternatives. If you want the same level of dysfunction, stay at home or vote as you have always voted; but there are opportunities for change.”
“I feel that it is part of a war of attrition by those parties, who know that they can wear down and wreck the heads of moderate centre-ground people and then use dog whistles to get their own voters out at the end. She also raised Alliance's amendment on rates, which we are content to add to the very long list of governance failings. <BR /> <BR />I will add to that list. To recap, it includes leaving us exposed to the worst aspects of a hard Brexit, led by a Government that have no interest and no understanding of the needs of people in Northern Ireland. It includes failures to bring forward strategies or legislation to advance the rights of ethnic minorities and the LGBT community; it also includes less childcare support than the Conservatives can provide for working families across the water.”
“<BR /> <BR />Eamonn McCann laid bare the binary world view of the DUP and Sinn Féin and how common goods, like a childcare strategy and a sexual orientation strategy, will always play second fiddle to the efforts that we have seen over the last few years to get one over on each other and one up for their voter base. <BR /> <BR />Jim Allister questioned whether Sinn Féin was committed to making Northern Ireland work at all. <BR /> <BR />Paula Bradshaw made an excellent point about the hopes and efforts of voluntary sector groups. Many of them took the time, in the days before Christmas, to respond in good faith to a Programme for Government that will sit on a shelf forever. That will diminish the interest and the possibility of civil society groups, in particular, engaging with future Programmes for Government.”
“Ten years of 10- and 11-year-olds have to pay the price for political inertia and for failure to get round to resolve a problem. <BR /> <BR />Colin McGrath and Jo-Anne Dobson gave magnificent defences of the health service, which has experienced 10 years of strategies that are never followed through and which now faces the winter crisis and the year ahead without a Budget in place. <BR /> <BR />Steven Agnew reminded us that, no matter how poor the Budget was likely to be — he pointed out that the last few have lacked imagination and fairness — the inability of the Executive even to put before us a Budget, last month and this, demonstrates their complete unfitness for office. The wrong of the Finance Minister's dereliction and the wrong of Arlene Foster's arrogance certainly do not make a right.”
“By the way, I do not doubt the commitment of the individuals who talked about fighting for their constituents, but they need to understand that the behaviour of their party has taken that opportunity to fight for constituents away from all of us. Talking about protecting, and continuously protecting, the interests of DUP voters entirely misses the point, as the DUP did with Brexit. There are more people out there than just DUP voters. You said that nobody had laid a glove on you politically. We will see whether the electorate wants to lay a glove on you, because the electorate would rather see half a billion pounds in public services than see it go up in smoke. <BR /> <BR />Sandra Overend raised the failure to resolve the post-primary mess, and that is one of the starkest failures.”
“He highlighted the hypocrisy of Sinn Féin's simultaneous attack on the Opposition parties for leaving government while they are in the middle of leaving government. He highlights the paucity of the Executive's response to Brexit, because the Fresh Start was the end of history and anything that happened afterwards, including the biggest political and economic crisis that we are going to experience, has to play second fiddle to their selfish squabbles and interests. <BR /> <BR />Roy Beggs returned to this fundamental issue, which was highlighted today by the plans that Theresa May has received from other devolved Assemblies. <BR /> <BR />I did not have great expectations about any DUP speeches, but to be compared to Miss Havishams by Pam Cameron really took the biscuit. Such hubris was on display from DUP Members.”
“In doing so, he inadvertently highlighted how Ulster Unionists did much of the heavy lifting to create the framework that has brought us to this place. We agree entirely that Sinn Féin shares a lot of blame for the car crash that we are now in, but DUP Member after DUP Member failed to grasp the joint nature of the institutions and the mess they are experiencing now. <BR /> <BR />Colum Eastwood pointed out one of the most visible signs of failure: the empty Benches to our right. He recounted the hollowness of the Programme for Government and the unwillingness of the DUP and Sinn Féin to engage in its development during the negotiations last May.”
“<BR /> <BR />Stephen Farry highlighted the missed opportunity that we had in the governance of the Assembly. Our view that the trust that was supposed to build up through power-sharing and parties working together in common endeavour — the very ethos of the Good Friday Agreement — has been brushed aside by parties that share power because the law tells them they have to and not because they want to or believe that it is for the advancement of people here. Dr Farry also highlighted the cronyism, deadlock and lack of transparency that have characterised this Government. <BR /> <BR />Christopher Stalford, with a remarkable grasp of the obvious, pointed out that Northern Ireland is safer now than it used to be.”
“I am not one for quoting Donald Trump, but I will say that they are "fake news" because they are putting out things that do not exist. <BR /> <BR />Mr Nesbitt covered many other issues, including the failure to deliver a victims' pension to 400 people who had had their life opportunities taken away from them in the Troubles. We all attend a lot of meetings, and I met that group two or three times. I am mortified to be part of an Assembly that made promises to those people, many of whom are in the latter years of their life, and has failed to deliver and give them the comfort of a small pension. He also highlighted the irony of one of the DUP's last acts in the Chamber being its petition of concern applied yesterday to the motion on the Speaker, which is characteristic of its approach to accountability.”
“The absent Finance Minister spoke eloquently yesterday about the experiences of some of those people, but he failed to mention that, as well as no Budget being brought forward to give them redress, their case, their cause and their sorrows were not mentioned in the Programme for Government that was being lauded just three weeks ago. <BR /> <BR />The same goes for equal marriage, an Irish language Act and other issues that are being made election issues but were totally overlooked in the strategic plan that was to set the stage for this mandate. It is disingenuous in the extreme and is part of the packages of spin that are coming out in the dog days of the Executive, such as enhanced rail services for Newry and breastfeeding legislation on which nobody will be here to pass.”
“I thank all Members who contributed to the debate, which has been a retelling of the very sad life story of this failed Government. <BR /> <BR />Mike Nesbitt opened the debate with a lengthy blooper reel of some of the failings of the DUP and Sinn Féin over the last decade. He spoke about the survivors of institutional abuse — they are here today — and that issue has a lot of resonance with me. It was nine and a half years ago that my mum, who served in the Assembly, brought that motion after campaigning for a number of years. Nine and a half long years elapsed before those victims had the support and redress that they needed.”
“I thank the Minister for her answer. Some Members might be aware of a persistent supply of drugs problem in the Lagan Meadows area in Stranmillis, which it is understood might have been displaced from another park. This is a well-used beauty spot, but drug-related paraphernalia and the appearance of crime are putting people off. Young people have been gathering there for a different purpose in recent months, and this presents a real danger to them. Are you satisfied with the conviction rate of those involved with the supply of drugs?”
“<BR /> <BR />We regret that an election has been forced before we have had the answers on the issue, but, unless parties choose to stand in the way of this motion, it should lead to an inquiry about who knew what and when and what they did about it. Those who do not fear being asked those questions should have no problem in supporting this motion, supporting the inquiry and restoring some accountability.”
“I do. I agree that the loss of public money is a great shame, and also the fact that people are being pushed into an election to have their say on accountability and corruption without actually being given all of the facts. In this society, we have become used to not getting answers, unfortunately, whether that refers to legacy issues of the past or glossing over the alphabet soup of scandals of this Executive around NAMA, SIF, the renewable heat incentive and many others. We need to change that culture, we need to start getting answers and we need people to understand that this Assembly is more than a racket and a farce.”
“The Member is entirely correct, and that is what is regrettable. We are now on 17 January, and these proposals have been in existence. We have been discussing these particular proposals for going on a month now, and the mechanisms that we need are in legislation. It was always a fallacy that we would create new legislation. The fact that this House is not going to be here after next week makes very clear that we would not have been able to create new legislation. You are absolutely right that we are ready to proceed on this.”
“It should not require approval from any Ministers — hopefully, Ministers in the Assembly, or, potentially, direct rule Ministers. One way or the other, the outcome of this inquiry will not be able to be kicked into the long grass, and the outcomes cannot be suppressed.”
“Our proposals also suggest that the judge to lead the inquiry be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice. We reject entirely the suggestion that it would be appointed by the Attorney General, who is himself a political appointee of this Executive. It is fair to say that that would not have the arm's-length remove that an inquiry would need. The format for the inquiry, as outlined, will facilitate cost recovery from those claims that are found to be fraudulent and can provide the basis for prosecution if malfeasance in public office is demonstrated or if other wilful fraudulent exploitation of the scheme is found. The inquiry should take no more than six months, which we think is entirely plausible, with updates at two monthly intervals.”
“All the relevant papers will be — or should be — a matter of record in the Department, so we should not see the same legal battles to compel papers.”
“I am thinking in particular of the first Haughey inquiry and of the 1999 deposit interest retention tax (DIRT) inquiry into allegations of tax evasion in the banking sector. That concluded after 26 days, on budget and led to prosecutions; it was a triumph for transparency and public accountability. Yes, some of the corruption scandals have dragged on over the years, primarily due to challenges based on the time that had elapsed, the challenges of compelling private individuals and of getting access to private information. That is also a red herring, as this is a relatively fresh scandal, and almost all those involved, be they elected Members or special advisers or civil servants, are still in post or, at the very least, are still in the neighbourhood and can be invited to come along.”
“That criticism is based on the issue of using national security as a blocker to get to truth, which is a convenient mutual veto that the party beside me benefits from as well. If Sinn Féin could explain what aspect of the renewable heat incentive scheme they think will be used to invoke a national security clause in this inquiry, their protestations would have some weight. <BR /> <BR />Other deflection tactics were used that this could cost millions and take years, as previous inquiries certainly have, but they do not have to take for ever, and many do not. Some of the first inquiries conducted under similar legislation in the Republic were quick, effective and good value for money.”
“I could not agree more. A lot of this could have been avoided by showing humility and by living up to the principle of accountability in public life. <BR /> <BR />I think that the motion is a fairly comprehensive overview of what we are proposing, but I want to speak to a few specific aspects and address some of the criticisms and concerns that people have stated. Another red herring has been raised, particularly by the party that usually sits to my right but which is absent today. Part of their 12 days of Christmas positions on a public inquiry in the last few weeks was that they said that they did not want a public inquiry, and they brought up criticism by the SDLP, by other parties and by human rights groups, of the 2005 Inquiries Act.”
“It seems that a Minister will take responsibility for a disaster in his or her Department. As a minimum, this motion required the First Minister to stand aside for the duration for an inquiry, although I accept that that is now a moot point as we are all being stood aside next week for our sins.”
“<BR /> <BR />I hear Sinn Féin in the media branding this a meaningless discussion today. That party abstained on the topic of a public inquiry earlier this month in Belfast City Hall, and it looks as if it will here as well. Sinn Féin can brand accountability meaningless, but many will interpret it as another way of avoiding the question: what did you know, when did you know it and what did you do about it? Presumably, their voting to water down an investigation into the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA) a few months ago was meaningless as well and not just the character of their opposition to accountability that, to them, is just about sound bites and distraction. <BR /> <BR />Accountability is, of course, a very important principle in public life; it is the norm in politics around the world — everywhere except here.”
“Members, yesterday, we gathered to discuss some of the proposals for cost recovery in the renewable heat incentive scheme, and, today, this motion attempts to put in place, finally, a public inquiry to establish who has been responsible for this governance disaster, what lessons can be learned and implemented, and to do so in public, free from political interference or cover-up or the perception of cover-up. If these institutions are falling over this issue, at least in part, and people, we are being told, are to have their say, it is our duty to give them the information to have their say as much as possible. Not the spin, just the facts. Who decided to amend the scheme from Britain? Why were warnings ignored? If warnings were made, what were they? What opportunities were and were not taken to fix the problem? Who benefited from it?”
“It is up to Members to convince the public that this is more than a ploy to restore, in some way, any reputation that the DUP ever had for competence — that is a lost cause, but, hopefully, we can at least recoup some public money.”
“I have a few more questions. Will the Minister clarify what impact, if any, the proposals have on the Treasury spend? When the scheme was being designed, it seemed to be, "Sure it's London's money; fill your boots". Is this just recouping block grant money, or does the Treasury expect to get any money back as well? It is all public money that somebody has earned and paid as tax. Will he further clarify if and when the names of those benefiting from the scheme will be published, and, if not, if and when he will publish the legal advice that he has received on that? <BR /> <BR />Members, we have a very difficult choice. It is more regrettable because it is being hothoused; we are being asked to make the choice very quickly without, as my colleague outlined, any of the normal transparency and scrutiny.”
“may be a route for tackling abuse of the scheme. I hope the Minister will comment on both aspects of Dr Capper's contribution in his winding-up speech.”