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 5 of 10.
“The Member will note and Hansard will show that I referred to the campaigners and campaigns that focused on immigration issues as well as the mystery £350 million, and I note that still none of you has updated us on that, but will the Member agree that at no point did the "Leave" campaign condemn those racists? At no point did anybody stand up during the campaign and protest against xenophobic signs showing lines of people queuing up at the border of an entirely different country. Will the Member agree that the position that you took in your August letter was a U-turn when you finally acknowledged the need for migrant labour here, and will you outline why that need was not outlined during your campaign?”
“— we welcome the Ulster Unionists having the discussion. It is more than the Executive have done but we agree that it is a bit too early to go to plan B.”
“Similarly, we could not possibly begin to unpick the legal and regulatory framework, and we have not heard from those who want to get our laws back from the faceless bureaucrats. They have not set out their alternatives so —”
“<BR /> <BR />I will not have time to cover all the issues such as research and development, innovation and the European Horizon 2020 fund. If we are outside Europe, people will need to explain how, and if, we will have access to that fund. To debate common travel and the avoidance of a hard border, we would need longer than an hour and a half, and those who say that neither of the Governments want this to change have yet to set out how they are going to keep what we have in place and how they will square that circle. The whole argument was about protecting our borders and keeping Johnny Foreigner out, but how can you do that when our near neighbour is perfectly entitled to have European consistent immigration policies?”
“We believe that the European Union, in the main, has done well to balance the interests of businesses and employees. We would like that framework of employment law and protections to remain, and some of that can be discussed. <BR /> <BR />The issue of education and skills is as above — we deserve those 21st century high-quality jobs here. Many of the businesses that wanted to invest here wanted us as a gateway to Europe. If that gateway is not there then we do not know how attractive that proposal will be. <BR /> <BR />We wish to see financial guarantees too and we repeatedly stated that there is a lack of guarantees. Even if London shared the detailed interest in our well-being, and I do not believe that it does, there is no guarantee that the UK's economy will remain strong enough to do this.”
“People look at the Republic and the advances it secured through corporation tax and fail to learn the lesson. Investors are not hanging around just waiting for the right tax deal; they want skills and infrastructure. I have said before that I am from Galway and that I drive up and down many times in the year. I drive through small towns like Athenry which has a massive number of tech jobs that our young people here deserve. Those jobs did not come just through the low tax rate, they came through investment in skills and infrastructure and, given the fact that London has effectively stolen our lunch by proposing to reduce its own corporation tax rate, the Executive have not set out how that policy will exist if we are outside the European Union. <BR /> <BR />The enterprise zone links into some of the issues mentioned.”
“I will address the specific issues in the paper which I think are a useful overview. Many would not think that we were being too cynical to think that the Executive's continued line of, "We are not revealing our negotiating hand", is a cover for, "We did no contingency planning as we were banking on this not happening, and even if we had any ideas we could not agree on them." I notice that the Member who spoke before me did not bother wasting any of his five minutes in actually setting out how we are going to deal with this problem but, instead, threw punches all around the Chamber. Thirty seconds to update us on where our £350 million for the NHS is would not have been too long out of the six minutes that he had. <BR /> <BR />I will look at some of the issues raised. Trebling our infrastructure, regardless of our future, is vital.”
“Very possibly, Theresa May is seeking excuses not to trigger article 50. Unnecessary as we think that is, we will continue to put forward and take any opportunity that we have to prevent it from happening.”
“Instead of diplomats, policymakers, resources and drafters spending time addressing that huge political problem that affects millions and saves the lives of millions, we are wasting our time trying to solve an unsolvable conundrum that did not have to be thrown into our future. <BR /> <BR />The Executive parties might dispute this, but it is not in the SDLP's nature to be obstructionist. We believe that, as legislators and as people elected to guard the public interest, it is firmly our duty not just to respect the will of the vast majority of the people here who voted to remain in the European Union, and for the stability, the opportunity and the diversity that that represents, but to do all that we can to prevent this unnecessary change from happening. We are not alone; senior people in every party understand that.”
“I appreciate the Ulster Unionists bringing this work forward. They deserve credit for at least articulating some of the issues that face Northern Ireland. We will agree to disagree on whether this is plan B or plan A. We are definitely not in the latter group, but we share some of the concerns about the conditions and investments that this place needs to enjoy. What frustrates me and many others about Brexit is the opportunity cost and the lost time. <BR /> <BR />Many of us came to the debate from the Refugees Welcome demonstration at the front of the Building, which was organised by the Northern Ireland Community of Refugees and Asylum Seekers (NICRAS), Amnesty and all. That was a massive political problem that the European Union really had to get to grips with.”
“I thank the Minister for his answers so far. In a previous answer, he referred to Executive unity. I think that the public are united in wanting to understand what did happen in the run-up to this deal. Will the Minister raise this at the next Executive meeting with a view to getting a united Executive commitment to a full, clear and transparent inquiry into the issue?”
“I thank the Minister for her answers so far. The summit notes refer to the status of EU citizens, which was raised in the letter that your colleague mentioned. How does the First Minister envisage the movement of labour if we are outside the European Union and the status of EU citizens who are not from this island?”
“which covers lot of what would appear to be very minor and mundane actions that can have a terrifying effect. In England and Wales, stalking was made a criminal act in November 2012, when two new offences were introduced. The police have statistics for 93,000 harassment offences and 3,100 stalking offences, of which 1,000-plus are being prosecuted. There, you can face up to five years in jail, whereas, here, the maximum is two years for harassment. <BR /> <BR />We support the motion, but we want a specific outcome and a commitment to bring forward legislation.”
“That is only in the context of intimate relationships and, therefore, would not address half of the cases that do not appear to be covered. <BR /> <BR />Mrs Dobson also touched on cyberstalking. With all the benefits of new media and social media, it is, unfortunately, a tool of control for those who have unprecedented access to the daily lives of women whom they choose to stalk. While it is mentioned in the stopping domestic and sexual violence and abuse strategy, again, there is no legislative outworking and none at all outside of intimate relationships. <BR /> <BR />A useful legislative format is available. The Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 provides a specific criminal offence of stalking. Section 39 lists a set of behaviours and, crucially, has a catch-all:”
“Through this amendment, we are calling for that work to be completed and for specific legislation to be developed that goes beyond harassment, which simply does not encompass the full and terrifying nature of stalking. <BR /> <BR />The Protection from Harassment Order 1997 refers to harassment or stalking as being a course of conduct that causes distress, alarm or fear of violence. The stopping domestic violence and sexual violence strategy of March 2016 specifically refers to stalking, but there is no legislative outworking.”
“Some terrifying stories have been reported around the world on the fatal consequences of this sense of entitlement by hopefully a very small minority of men. <BR /> <BR />We obviously do not have statistics for here, but the crime survey for England and Wales suggests that one in five women and one in 10 men will experience the manifestations of stalking at some point in their lifetime. While, as Members have said, it is a specific criminal offence in England, Scotland and Wales, there is no legislation here. In an answer to a written question earlier this year, the then Justice Minister, David Ford, suggested that his Department was planning to undertake a review of aspects of the criminal law and that legislation might be brought forward in the next mandate.”
“Stalking can be done by strangers or in the context of an ongoing domestic violence relationship. I understand that, in around half of cases, it is taking place where there is only a very casual acquaintance between the perpetrator and their victim. Almost by definition, stalkers are delusional and obsessive and, in many cases, go to very extreme lengths to contact, follow and monitor their victims. In very many cases, the motivation is what they see as revenge for a woman who they believe has rejected their advances. There is an underlying societal problem in that some men have a sense of entitlement to the attention of women, and that fundamentally needs to be addressed as it is feeding that kind of control.”
“Indeed, while some of the behaviours that constitute harassment will be similar to those manifesting in stalking, a key difference is the obsessive fixation usually on one person, although we are aware of career stalkers who move on from one woman to another. Mrs Hale has painted a very vivid and terrifying picture of how that can feel for the victims, who are usually women.”
“I commend the Member for bringing forward this important issue, and I assure her that our amendment is purely for the purposes of strengthening the motion and allowing the Assembly to be more directive on the legislation that will be needed. As the Member said, there is no formal legal definition of stalking. Most experts agree that it is a long-term pattern of unwanted, persistent and intrusive behaviour directed by one person to another that engenders fear and distress in the victim. We feel that the impact on the victim, which may vary, should be at the centre of the legislation. There are behaviours that, at third hand, might not fall into any other legal category but that, taken over time and compounded, can be a huge intrusion and can have a terrifying impact on the victim.”
“I thank the Minister for his statement and answers so far. There was concern about the lack of contingency planning ahead of Brexit, and that was revealed in numerous questions to Ministers, and, indeed, when SEUPB representatives presented to the Finance Committee, they confirmed that they had had no contact with the Northern Ireland Executive prior to Brexit, even though the Dublin Government had been back and forth with them. Can you outline what meetings the Northern Ireland Executive have conducted, since Brexit, to devise that strategy, and what strategy is in place to, in the worst-case scenario, recoup this funding after the 2019 cliff?”
“Will the Minister outline what strategies he can bring forward so that he is vigilant against and can prevent a raid by the incoming UK Government? I suspect that they will not spend more than a couple of seconds thinking about the nuances, complexities and differing needs of a region that will be massively disproportionately affected by Brexit. <BR /> <BR />Throughout the campaign, we said that one third of our exports were agrifoods; across the water, the figure is just 3%. The current Government do not really understand our economy, and I am sure that the new one will not either, and they will have many other things to deal with. Will the Minister outline what his strategy will be to ensure that there is not a raid on our block grant or the Barnett formula?”
“I suspect that, primarily, they see Brexit and the resulting austerity as an opportunity to sell more pamphlets and put up more placards and posters. Who needs to care about protecting the economy and public services when you can just cry about them being cut again? <BR /> <BR />When we were talking about it this morning, I thought about the scale of the ramifications for markets, law, workers' rights and public services. I am not that much of a conspiracy therapist, but it put me in mind of Naomi Klein's shock doctrine. Basically, that is the theory of disaster capitalism and neo-liberals using national crises, and the distraction and emotional shock that they cause — to utterly redesign systems and force through the most controversial of reforms in what is, essentially, a form of shock therapy carried out on the entire economy.”
“We could put the rate back up and get back into the public purse what was not necessarily coming in through high-quality jobs. We await a wider political and constitutional strategy from the Executive about what to do post-Brexit, but I am keen to hear the Minister's plan. <BR /> <BR />Earlier, I expressed the view that some on the hard end of the left wing were very casual about Brexit. They threw up the argument about the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) as a campaigning tool during the election but refused to answer questions on the absolute quirk in their screwy logic, which was that it would not be better for that to be negotiated by 28 countries than handing it all to Boris Johnson and Michael Gove.”
“Of course, in theory, the Azores ruling will no longer be an issue, and my understanding is that they do not have to take the consistent amount off our block grant. <BR /> <BR />Will the Minister consider implementing a sunset clause on corporation tax? We consider that that would be useful. If we do not see the arrival of 21st-century serious, decent jobs because of the drop in corporation tax — I have long since been of the view that entrepreneurs are not hanging around waiting for a tax cut but looking for the other circumstances to be right — will he consider writing in a sunset clause? That would mean that, if we did not get those jobs, we would no longer have to subscribe to what could crudely be called "corporate welfare".”
“We heard a pretty optimistic view of the post-Brexit world from the Committee Chair, who, I appreciate, is not here. I do not share her enthusiasm about the opportunities. If the opportunities were so fruitful, they should have been fleshed out. Instead, what we now know to be campaign priorities — the NHS and immigration — were the subject of a world-record breaking reverse ferret: people were in the media literally hours after claiming victory to recant those horrible promises. <BR /> <BR />I have a couple of specific questions. Will the Minister outline what impact the Azores ruling will have in his negotiations, if he can find somebody to negotiate with, on corporation tax with the Treasury?”
“I know that the Minister is keen enough on the idea, but we would like a move to a slightly more zero-based budgeting approach so that every time that any party — government or opposition — makes a funding proposal, it cannot be just pitched as robbing Peter to pay Paul, and, essentially, we have to go from the start and redesign our budgets and spending priorities that fit our specific needs rather than just, as I say, the baseline budget given to us by the Treasury.”
“<BR /> <BR />We also raised concerns previously about transparency and the direction of the joint government manifesto commitment for an extra £1 billion on health and the extent to which that money would be used sustainably. As I say, we urge that more of a priority be placed on infrastructure, childcare, early years and apprenticeships, and we have outlined extensive proposals elsewhere during the debates.”
“Obviously, we do not have the detail yet, but we do not see anything specific in the Programme for Government that leads us to believe that that will change very radically in transforming the economy or adding significant value to what we already get from devolution and from copying things over from London. In particular, we feel that investment in skills is lacking, and that will make a challenging foreign direct investment proposal even more challenging. Given that we will no longer be a gateway to Europe, being skilled and having infrastructure is ever more important. We are concerned about increased funding going to the likes of SIF and the Executive Office, which we do not feel are sufficiently transparent or have a particularly good record of delivery.”
“I thank the Minister. I will keep my comments brief because we discussed the Bill at length earlier in the process. Quite clearly, you have an incredibly large job ahead of you in picking up some of the pieces from last week. I welcome the Minister's very rational comments in the debate and, indeed, in the media earlier and urge him to continue to ensure that the Northern Ireland Executive represent Northern Ireland's interests in the absence of any plan coming from London or anywhere else to make sure that our financial interests are not just washed away in the chaos that surrounds the Brexit decision. <BR /> <BR />We remain of the view that this Budget treads water by having policies and spending priorities that we do not feel are delivering very effectively for Northern Ireland. They were not ambitious.”
“Does the Member acknowledge that the people of Greece, with respect to the Government in Greece, made very poor domestic decisions? Does the Member acknowledge that the ratepayers and taxpayers across Europe had an entitlement to not keep paying the bailout money?”
“Does the Member agree that the protection of free movement on this island is paramount, not just for the 30,000 who cross the border every day but for businesses that trade in Ireland?”
“The centre, the majority, voted for Europe, and it is the duty of the Assembly to represent that centre.”
“Later today, we are to discuss the Budget and how we get corporation tax, which is the basket that we are putting all our eggs in, when every single foreign direct investor has said that they wanted us stable, they wanted us skilled, and they wanted us as a gateway to Europe. Those on the left who put their ideological purity over public services and people have forfeited the right to complain about the hardship that the block grant being dumped will bring. <BR /> <BR />I am not given to quoting poetry, but I will in the last. Yeats said:”
“No, the Member is going to get through some of her own points. <BR /> <BR />Whatever your views on the logic of Scottish unity, they did their homework, and we have not done our homework on maxing out devolution or on Irish unity yet. We need to do that, but forcing that instability on people would be reckless in the extreme. On how we move forward, let us not forget that we have the most imaginative constitutional settlement possibly anywhere in the world: it allows people here to be British or Irish or both as they so choose, and you cannot just write that away. Good political and legal minds wrote that while the party across was marching up and down the driveway, taking no part in the solutions, but solutions can be found.”
“We spent the last four months telling you that "Leave" was a leap into the unknown and so was a border poll, but I will tell you this: the relationship between moderate nationalists and moderate unionists in the United Kingdom is fundamentally and recklessly altered. The social democratic benefits, like the National Health Service and stability and tolerance, are now on their way out or are being taken out. The principle of consent that we all adhere to in the Good Friday Agreement has been breached. The constitutional status of Northern Ireland cannot change without the —”
“The DUP said that the majority in Scotland did not vote for independence last time — that vote is smaller than the majority that you got — but that that majority is somehow decisive and settled while this majority is not. You cannot pick and choose on these things. <BR /> <BR />Members wanting to make this a green-and-orange issue is another dereliction of duty. We also need a Government that represents everybody here and not party interests, and I think that knee-jerk calls for a border poll are the last thing that we need. We have seen over the last few months the atavistic passions that that raises in people, including people without a history of recent violent extremism, and a woman, an MP and a young mum is dead because of that. We are too fragile to have that sort of instability.”
“No, I will not because I have given way for quite some time. <BR /> <BR />There is now no plan, and it is a dereliction of duty for the First Minister of Northern Ireland to say that, despite there being no plan, we will wash up the same creek that the UK Government find themselves in without a paddle. This result was a leap into the unknown, and people here knew that. A majority of people wanted to stay in Europe and have the stability, the opportunity and the cooperation that it offers. We have to try to get that. <BR /> <BR />The DUP refuses to accept the democratic will of the people, 70% of whom voted for the Good Friday Agreement, and the DUP refuses to accept that a majority in the Assembly and a majority in the UK support equal marriage. You choose which issues to veto.”
“Those who led the "Leave" campaign have gone AWOL. Your friends are popping up in the media to roll back on a lot of the spoofs that they put out over the last few months on extra money to the NHS, the ending of free movement of people and when article 50 would be triggered. As the Member has said, the quarter of a trillion that has had to be pumped into standing up the pound today represents 20 years of EU contributions. The Members across talk about the disenfranchised and the forgotten. How are those people going to feel when they find out that they were lied to and that their opportunity and financial stability were thrown away for a handful of magic sovereignty beans? There is now no plan.”
“I do not know what you are laughing at. You have lost this. Those who led —”
“The Member has had his time; the Member can sit down.”
“I am going to get to your points, but those who set themselves up as defenders of the Union and the empire should look at the polls in Scotland and be very careful about what they have wished for.”
“We are seeing market instability, we are seeing the beginnings of job loss announcements and we are seeing the two UK Government parties essentially setting themselves on fire. The polls show —”
“I am going to get under way. <BR /> <BR />For something this major, we are entitled to ask who did this, and why. As an Assembly, it is our job to chart some sort of a course and to play the hand that we have been dealt, not just for the people who voted "Remain", but for all those people who are going to be affected by this. That includes people who were too young to vote — I am not saying that a younger person's vote is worth more than anybody else's — and the tens of thousands of people from the European Union who have come here, work hard, pay into our system, did not get a vote and have been scapegoated for every problem of the world. <BR /> <BR />We warned about the carnival of reaction that would follow Brexit, and we are seeing it now.”
“For those I have been speaking to over the weekend, the overwhelming emotions are still shock and anxiety. As much as the party across wants to gloss over the arguments and myth-making of the last few months, for something this major —”
“I thank the Minister for her answers and congratulate her on her new post. In the November monitoring round, the then Finance Minister announced £40 million for elective care procedures, precisely to address those waiting lists. Will the Minister outline how much of that money was spent and, if it was not all spent, where the surplus went?”
“I thank the Minister for that comprehensive answer. Can he outline what information his Department will release in response to the request from the Committee for Finance to release previously redacted or withheld information?”
“Sorry for cutting in on this dance. It is worrying that, every time we have gone into these negotiations, we have come out with something a little bit weaker. Does the Minister agree that having a well-trained and well-skilled workforce is essential to capitalise on the benefits of low corporation tax? Does he agree that, to achieve this, reinstating investment in higher education should be a priority?”
“You say that money is getting out; it was not getting out for four years until the month before the election.”
“Certainly. I asked for clarity because it underlines the point that this Government are doing their business behind closed doors. You bypassed us on the paramilitary report and you bypassed us on this, and, if you give people 20 minutes' notice to peruse 37 pages of figures, we are entitled to ask for some clarity. <BR /> <BR />Regarding the second figure, you will see that it was correct in the tweet at £27·2 million. With SIF, nobody is criticising the fact that money is going to social change; we are criticising the fact that it is a slush fund for invited guests only and that it is not open, on an equal footing, to all organisations.”
“If it was so simple, perhaps you could have responded to me at the time when I asked for clarity. You did not. You clearly found the discrepancy on your lunch break.”