Steve Aiken
South Antrim · Ulster Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, as well as the move to reduce the cost to the Assembly of vacant non-domestic properties and to increase liability so that we will not have so many vacant properties, you will be aware of the Dilapidation Bill and of the conversations that have been taking place in Wales and Scotland about…”
“Instead, that most dysfunctional Department, under the most inept Sinn Féin Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly and a series of grossly over-superannuated permanent secretaries, gave the money back.”
“We know that her Department spends more on legal cases, fighting judicial reviews and being chastised by judges for legal ineptitude and on vesting land and ripping out hedges and fencing and then trying to unvest it and paying even more money to put back the fences and hedges that it took out.”
“We can hardly blame the current permanent secretary, as she has just taken up her post, but, surely, her predecessors must bear some accountability or responsibility, especially considering the senior civil servants' salary scale of between £146,000 and £163,000, with, of course, their taxpayer-funded pension contribution of 34·2% — £218,…”
“It must be said that £181·3 million is a lot of taxpayers' hard-earned money. It is money that is raised from local commuters, vehicle owners, farmers, local businesses, logistics companies and, above all, our constituents — those vital people whom we are elected to represent.”
“The Minister will be aware that, under the public appointments guide published by the Executive Office, it is clear that she is supposed to take independent advice before appointing board members. What independent advice did she receive, particularly about the board members selected?”
The complete record
Every one of 2,489 lines we hold for Steve Aiken, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 50.
“Jim was a local politician for everyone, and condolences have been expressed by all political parties. That is more than testament to the great regard that he was held in by all our communities. <BR /> <BR />I worked closely with Jim on many other issues, including his help for the blue-light services. He was heavily involved through his civilian role in policing and he provided support for serving and retired members of the PSNI. His role in supporting police pensioners was widely recognised by all members of the policing family as being pivotal to their welfare. The sense of loss and shock that we have in our party is mirrored in the PSNI and the Policing Board. However, it is as a stalwart member of our party that we miss him most.”
“It is with some sadness that I rise to report the passing yesterday of our well-liked ex-mayor, councillor and UUP association chair, Jim Montgomery. Jim was a prominent political figure in South Antrim, particularly the town of Antrim — a town that he was immensely proud to represent and with which he had a strong affinity. Everyone knew him as "Gentleman Jim". <BR /> <BR />Jim was an Ulster Unionist Party councillor for several years, representing Antrim on Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council. However, it was during COVID, when he was our mayor, that Jim's immense empathy and compassion was shown to all people of the borough. Working within the restrictions, he reached out to all of the most vulnerable members of our community, using his office to support those most in need and using his voice for the benefit of all.”
“I know; I thought that, Minister. <BR /> <BR />For clarification, we both sat at Hillsborough Castle many times when Health was not just a priority for all the other parties but the priority. Will the Minister reflect on the things that the other parties have said?”
“I will probably not join other Members, because you will be missed from Finance. Economy's gain is Finance's loss. <BR /> <BR />Have your Department or your officials been in contact with the providers of mobile telephone communication systems in particular? Those are items of critical national infrastructure, and they seem to have failed at the first hurdle. There do not seem to be any examples of battery backup or internal power supplies to keep the systems working. That is probably contrary to what Ofcom would recommend. Can you say whether your officials are engaging with Ofcom directly and with the companies? What can we do to ensure that critical national infrastructure is, in fact, critical and looked after?”
“Just maybe, when the Taoiseach sits around the European leaders' table tonight, Ireland, instead of pontificating, will actually do something and join the rest of us to secure our continent.”
“Those who think that that is too much should be aware that Ukraine currently spends around 26·9% of its GDP on defence. <BR /> <BR />Recognition of the threat from Putin and his fellow travellers is, regrettably, not universal across Europe. One nation stands aside as a security freeloader par excellence, a nation that lectures everyone on peace but relies on NATO to protect its wide-open sea and airspace. It is a nation whose head of state uses a children's science contest to castigate those whom it needs to secure and defend its very economic and social well-being. Later today, we will have an Opposition day motion on a shared island. Maybe Ireland should start sharing its responsibility for our collective European defence.”
“Attacks by drones, ballistic missiles and artillery, as well as full-frontal attacks, which appear no different to the grim conditions experienced in the First World War and the Second World War, show that Putin, far from seeking a peaceful resolution to the war, is determined to fight on to the last conscript, the last North Korean and the last Ukrainian. If he wins, he will, inexorably, move to challenge the Baltic states, Poland and eastern Europe. The horrors of Kyiv, Odesa and Mariupol will be visited on other European cities. <BR /> <BR />The lessons of history cannot be ignored. Our nation has to show leadership, including, no matter how unpopular, increasing our expenditure on defence from 2·3% to 3·5% or even beyond.”
“Today, our Prime Minister is in Brussels, working on a much-needed reset in relationships between our nation and the European Union. The meeting rightly focuses on our combined need to resist Russian aggression in Ukraine and to kick-start a much-needed rearmament of the EU and the United Kingdom in order to challenge Putin's use of hybrid warfare and disinformation and his attempts to reinforce Russian power and hegemony over eastern Europe and beyond. <BR /> <BR />The war in Ukraine has reached a critical stage. Putin's use of North Korean forces was an unprecedented intervention in European affairs. The fact that the bravery and determination of the Ukrainian military has blunted and inflicted massive casualties on Kim Jong Un's army does not extinguish the peril that Ukraine faces.”
“My party adds its thanks to the public servants and, indeed, members of civil society who have been dealing with the issues. <BR /> <BR />First Minister, the question seems to be about what has happened to the mobile telephone networks. Many of us were rightly awakened to the concerns about the alarm that went off across the system. For many people this weekend, the mobile telephone networks have not worked, and people have had no method of getting any form of communication. Are there any lessons to be identified here, and are we talking to the mobile telephone networks to make sure that there is redundancy in their systems? There does not seem to be.”
“At the commemoration in Dublin of the 7 October massacre, neither the president, the Taoiseach nor the Tánaiste thought it worthy to attend a Dublin synagogue in solidarity with Ireland's small Jewish community. That was bad enough. However, yesterday's blatant attempt to equate the Holocaust with events in the Middle East is beyond revulsion. That Simon Harris chose to defend Higgins' remarks just reinforces to the world the real state of antisemitism in Ireland. Listening again to Ivor Perl's words about the fear of antisemitism in the so-called civilised West, one does not have to look very far from these Benches to see how many of our fears are being realised.”
“<BR /> <BR />One of the worst examples has come from the Irish state. Across the United States, all over Europe and amongst the Jewish people, Ireland is now seen as a haven of antisemitism. Anyone who saw the disgraceful hauling away of a pregnant Jewish academic, who was making a dignified and silent protest at the Irish president's politicisation of remarks at the Holocaust memorial event in Dublin yesterday, will be in no doubt about the ingrained antisemitism now prevalent on this island. While self-awareness was never a trait that could be laid at President Higgins's door, especially after he blamed the Israeli embassy for leaking his remarks about the leadership of the Iranian regime, we should heed the remarks of the Chief Rabbi of Ireland, who said that the president had:”
“<BR /> <BR />I am proud that the Assembly debated and agreed to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism in April 2021, that, as an Assembly, we recognise that the scourge of antisemitism has to be combated, and that, all too regrettably, far too many across this island use antisemitic tropes on an almost daily basis, thinly disguised, if at all, under the banner of criticism of Israel. That criticism is without balance and regularly ignores the ongoing violence across the Middle East, eastern Europe and beyond. It seems that, because Israel is involved, it is somehow acceptable to focus wholly on the Jewish community and go for wholesale victim-blaming of that community at every opportunity. For the avoidance of doubt, that is not legitimate criticism but blatant antisemitism.”
“Today is Holocaust Memorial Day. The date of 27 January is chosen because it marks the moment 80 years ago when the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camps were liberated. Last week, on BBC Radio 4, Ivor Perl BEM, a camp survivor, spoke of the horrors of the Holocaust, the murder of six million Jews and the need for remembrance. As he said, that need for remembrance has never been greater as the vile scourge of antisemitism has re-emerged with vehemence.”
“I thank the Minister for his reply. He will be aware that there has always been a lot difficulty around planned maintenance, particularly in relation to Coolkeeragh power station. It is probably due to have some planned maintenance. There is a significant problem, because, if it goes down for any particular reason, there would be significant concerns about maintaining the security of supply. Is the Minister's Department engaging with other utility users more widely so that if, for example, Coolkeeragh goes down, we will not be in a position where we have to do load shedding? That is a significant concern, despite the smooth tones that are coming out of SONI.”
“I think that I thank the First Minister for her remarks. My question was on the role of the democratic institutions and, in particular, the safeguards that were supposed to be in place. When the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee clearly does not work and does not do what it is supposed to do, the key question is this: what proposal is coming from the Executive Office in particular to enable us to get things in which people can have faith and trust? Frankly, people have no faith and trust in the rules and systems that we have at the moment.”
“First Minister, have you had the opportunity to consult our friends in Scotland and, indeed, in Manchester? Edinburgh, Glasgow and Manchester are looking for pre-clearance as well. That would be well within the remit of the great airport that is Belfast International Airport, which is, of course, in my constituency.”
“The Minister is aware that labelling on various agricultural goods says, "Not for sale within the EU". Will the Minister take the opportunity, during his North/South talks, to suggest introducing labelling of goods in the Irish Republic that says, "Not for sale in the UK"? That would prevent Mercosur goods contaminating the Northern Ireland market, which is something that most Northern Ireland farmers would like to see.”
“Minister, one of the issues that have been raised with me about the dilapidation Bill, which will be welcomed by most people, concerns historically significant buildings that, for various reasons, some people would like to get rid of. Can you outline any safeguards that we can expect to see in the dilapidation Bill to ensure that our much-valued built environment is not desecrated?”
“I wish the Minister a happy new year. Minister, the cost of the separated prison regime is significant. Has your Department been able to annualise the costs and look at their impact? Will you report those costs, please?”
“Just for the record, the Member will be aware that I voted Remain.”
“Apologies, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, and it is a term of endearment. Andrew.”
“Thank you very much. Thank you very much indeed to the Minister for looking at one of our substantial issues, in particular, the agriculture piece. The Minister will be aware that, admittedly, it is under the Hungarian presidency, but the European Commission recently looked at its negotiating position in reference to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement review in 2026. One of the key things that it said was that there would be no cherry-picking and there would be no move towards an SPS agreement unless there was an in-depth fisheries agreement. As the Minister responsible for Northern Ireland fisheries, could you perhaps address how a comprehensive SPS agreement can be achieved without giving away substantial issues on our fisheries?”
“On a point of guidance, the Member will find a paper that mentions all of those things on the Ulster Unionist Party website. I would be delighted if everyone read it, because it contains a method for moving ahead.”
“Sorry, allow me to finish without interrupting, please. You have given me an opportunity to speak, and I am trying to answer your point. <BR /> <BR />The question has to be this: what would give us a stronger negotiating hand? If the Assembly, as a whole, said, "With this, we will not put up", would that not be a much stronger message to send Brussels and London than, "Half of us — or, regrettably, slightly fewer than half of us — have decided that we are not going to support the retention"? Over to you, please.”
“I thank the Member for his remarks. The key question is this: what would be our strongest negotiating hand with the European Union and the British Government? Would it not be much stronger if we all rejected it and said, "This will —"”
“We hear many complaints in the Assembly about Westminster imposing rules and regulations. It is well beyond comprehension that those same MLAs would vote for the unbridled imposition of European Union rules. Supporting the retention of articles 5 to 10 would show that narrow ideology supplants the needs of our people. This will maybe not happen now, but soon the electorate will realise the severe long-term implications of the vote and will note who voted for the needs of the people rather than those of the EU and, I dare say, the British Government. <BR /> <BR />I urge you all vote against the retention of articles 5 to 10.”
“Retaining those articles also takes away any bargaining power that we might have in the review of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement in 2026.”
“Members will be whipped by the parties; those driven by ideology will not vote on the merits of articles 5 to 10 but will re-fight the Brexit referendum or cling to a nebulous belief that we will bring forward a constitutional referendum by undermining the foundation of the United Kingdom. Contrary arguments will be made about the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom and how the protocol in all its parts undermines our Union. I have a lot of sympathy for that argument, but the real reason why we should reject articles 5 to 10 is that they fundamentally undermine the competitiveness of our economy. They work against our customers, our farmers, our hospitality sector, our green targets and even our livestock and domestic animals. The articles remove this place's role in democratic accountability.”
“<BR /> <BR />It also seems bizarre that article 10 has been quoted by certain UK government officials — I hope that they are listening — as a reason why aid cannot be given to Harland and Wolff when, clearly, all across the European Union, shipyards are either state-owned or heavily state-subsidised. It seems oxymoronic that that very article is quoted as a reason for not revitalising one of our vital historic and increasingly strategic industries. That is another reason why all MLAs should call out that article, as well as the others, for rejection. <BR /> <BR />MLAs should take an objective rather than an ideological view on whether articles 5 to 10 benefit Northern Ireland. They categorically do not.”
“Thank you very much indeed. The point is that we need to have an energy system on these islands that is fit for purpose. One thing that we can definitely say is that ISEM is not fit for purpose. It is not working. Thank you for raising the point, however. <BR /> <BR />Article 9, surely, is not in our best interests. As has been, or should be, pointed out by other commentators, the so-called best of both worlds can be achieved only if other factors are considered, such as an all-island corporation tax, although, surreally, that would be deemed contrary to article 10.”
“The benefits of a large GB system, connected as it is to Norway and northern Europe, with a significantly higher penetration of renewable wind, backed up by secure nuclear and closed-cycle gas, are being denied to us by our remaining in the anti-competitive and monopolistic integrated single electricity market (ISEM). As anybody who has talked to our energy industry will tell you, England, Scotland and Wales, by coming under Ofgem, have certainty, while all we have is endless delays, shambolic non-strategies and article 9, which is not fit for purpose.”
“<BR /> <BR />Paradoxically, GB is the only market to which we are physically connected and the only one from which we cannot gain an advantage. In fact, we will be financially penalised for doing so while adopting a protectionist system that adds cost to the consumer and does not add to the security of supply but will, in fact, make it worse and then make it more difficult for us to meet our net zero carbon targets. By voting for the retention of article 9, we will work against our carbon targets rather than accelerate towards a more secure energy system.”
“Even if we hoped to negotiate a variation of VAT to enable our businesses to compete on a level playing field, under articles 8 and 10, we will not be able to do so. <BR /> <BR />We cannot even take full advantage of the lower industrial and manufacturing energy costs in GB because of article 9 and the little-understood but far-reaching EU electricity market design reform mechanism. Provisions in that mechanism require our energy system to meet targets that are impossible to achieve without GB interconnections even though it is not physically connected to that of the rest of the island. I defer to my friend Mr Frew on that point. We do not have an all-island energy system. It is not there. It is only a virtual energy market.”
“Reciprocity. Thank you, Naomi. That reciprocity across industry and our UK-wide supply chains is being damaged by the Windsor framework now. It has already started in the SME sectors. Unless it is halted, diversion and its chilling effect will spread further across all sectors of our economy. As we have heard from the likes of the Federation of Small Businesses, a review of those processes would be welcome, so why do we not give it to them by rejecting articles 5 to 10? <BR /> <BR />On article 7, we have referred to the avalanche of regulations, directives and other non-tariff barriers that are having significant impacts on us, showing that a review of article 7 is also urgently required. <BR /> <BR />The VAT rates on this island, which are discriminatory and impact on our hospitality sector in particular, are enshrined in article 8.”
“<BR /> <BR />Article 6, while dealing with Northern Ireland to GB, does not consider the chilling effect of article 5 on moving goods into Northern Ireland, with GB companies of all sizes impacting on their own lean logistics, supply chains and circular economy. That recipisis — I will say that again. That recipis —. Anyhow —.”
“While divergence from the rest of the United Kingdom is occurring in agriculture, manufacturing, regulations, medicines — I am glad that Mrs Long mentioned dental amalgams, because, remember, this is only deferring the adoption of the rules, not changing the rules — pet foods, animal welfare and much more, there is still not one example of the single market being put at risk by UK goods. However, as the adoption by the EU of the Mercosur agreement shows, there is a very real threat to contamination of our market and, by extension, the UK market by other imports coming from outside even the European Union. It is not the integrity of the EU internal market that is being compromised: it is our UK market that is being damaged.”
“I thank the Member for bringing up her party's position, yet again, but the point was very ably made. <BR /> <BR />Moving on. Curiously, the reasoning behind our having to follow articles 5 to 10 was that the integrity of the EU single market had to be protected at all costs. Article 5 places the integrity of the EU single market to the fore, but we have seen that the risk of EU single market contamination is minimal, even with the many derogations that we have continued to have in place up until now, but primacy over the UK internal market undermines our economy. The increasingly zealous application of those rules over our own needs will only exacerbate concerns about democratic accountability.”
“As the party that supported and was fundamental to the creation of, the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, we believe that the failure to adhere to that convention is a grave mistake. Again, if it was not for the ideological position of some Members, we would all be agreeing on that. Being partial with community consent on such major constitutional issues as this will have profound and long-lasting implications. Please, Members on all sides of the Chamber, allow that thought to sink in.”
“To be honest, that came as a bit of a surprise to some of our party members who were involved in the talks, but I digress. <BR /> <BR />It was stated in the Secretary of State's explanatory notes to the motion that opinion on these articles should be sought from institutions created by the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. The Assembly is one of those institutions, as are the Northern Ireland Executive, and our opinion is not being sought. It is being ignored. As we are the custodians of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement and the political representatives of the people of Northern Ireland, our voice needs to have equal weight where rules and regulations pertain to Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Others will comment on the fact — some already have — that the motion will not be subject to cross-community support.”
“It means that the UK and EU Governments will think about it for a year or so, possibly. <BR /> <BR />You may hear arguments that the negotiations between the UK and EU will not, or cannot, be reopened, even though we know that, in fewer than 13 months' time, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement is being tabled for review. Even a cursory glance at any of the EU official press releases will show the flexibility, negotiation and pragmatism that are shown daily on trade deals, treaties and international arrangements. However, to be clear, that is only when it is in Brussels's interests. So why can they, and we, not put Northern Ireland's interests first? Northern Ireland should be in Brussels's interests because, after all, every EU official I have ever met has told our party how central the European Union was to the peace process.”
“Currently, there is little or no direct, effective dialogue between the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly and the key UK Government and EU stakeholders. We can attend meetings like low-grade civil servants in the alphabet soup of EU-UK Joint Committees. However, by rejecting articles 5 to 10, we could and should be communicating the strong case that we should not be bystanders but sitting as equal partners on the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee. <BR /> <BR />If it impacts on Northern Ireland, we should have a say. The Stormont brake, for those who have studied it, is anything but. At best, it is a loud alarm that real harm is being done to Northern Ireland, but without any direct mechanism to influence a call for a halt or delay of the implementation of areas covered by articles 5 to 10. Remember, the brake does not mean stop.”
“We should be starting that process of scrutiny and accountability by rejecting articles 5 to 10, thereby sending a message that we should seek to cease the application of those articles while we seek an arrangement with the European Union and the British Government that is pragmatic, pro Northern Ireland and does not impose internal borders. <BR /> <BR />We also need to bear in mind that the worst impacts of the provisions laid out in articles 5 to 10 are yet to be implemented. Rejecting them would give us time for a fundamental review of the process before permanent harm is done. By sending out that message today, we can categorically say that we want to be heard and have a say in the laws that affect us.”
“We have not even properly scrutinised the 23 regulations that we have had before us, having held inquiries into less than 20% of those EU requirements. There is absolutely no way that the Assembly can currently act as the scrutiny safeguard that the people of Northern Ireland need. As was stated to us recently in Brussels, even countries such as Norway and EU countries such as Estonia struggle to comprehend that legislative tsunami. We therefore need a way to limit the scope of those EU regulations in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Just because some of us cannot understand what is being imposed on us, there is no reason why we should blindly accept it. Why should we accept differing standards in laws from Brussels from those that we would accept from London or even those that we enact ourselves? Surely, that is what democracy is about?”
“So far, as well as the existing EU legislation that has been carried over under those articles, we have, since January this year, adopted around 23 regulations and responded to several applicability motions. Members will note that, during that time, the EU Commission, the EU Parliament and the Council of the European Union were largely moribund, given that the EU elections were in the summer of this year. In a normal year, we can expect, on average, 80 directives, 1,200 regulations and around 700 decisions to come from Brussels. While some of those may not apply to the Windsor framework, many will, fully or in part. The likely volume of future legislation, directives, applicability motions, decisions and regulations makes it inconceivable that we can adequately scrutinise that volume of change coming in our direction.”
“It is no surprise that the SNP wants an arrangement similar to the Windsor framework, not for the good of Scotland but to help to render asunder the Union. However, by myopically supporting the retention of articles 5 to 10, we will serve only to undermine our economy for our farmers, our business people, our consumers, our entrepreneurs and, indeed, for all of us: nationalists, unionists and others. <BR /> <BR />Let us move specifically to articles 5 to 10. As the consent mechanism requires us to vote on articles 5 to 10 in their entirety, at this stage, we have to examine the combined and cumulative effect of those rules and draw a judgement on them.”
“If we do not do that and start the reform process now, we will be tied into another eight years of stultifying and restrictive legislation that does little or nothing for Northern Ireland. However, we know that this is not about doing what is right for us. It is about ideology, as some believe that the continued application of articles 5 to 10 will lead inexorably to an ever-expanding internal border within our own country, the United Kingdom. Some, if not most, of those who will vote for the retention of those articles believe that, after eight years, our economies will have diverged so far that constitutional change will become inevitable.”
“Excuse me, I will continue. <BR /> <BR />An accumulation of changes is making us diverge increasingly from our largest market — our own nation. The message to our companies and those who are looking at investing here is that the costs of doing business here are higher. Rather than being a streamlined and pro-business environment, we are increasingly being sucked into a morass of excessive legislation and rules. The cumulative effect is impacting on all of us, which is why, if we actually looked at it objectively, all MLAs should vote to reject articles 5 to 10. The main reason for that is simple: we need to send a strong message to Brussels and London that we all want to see the interests of Northern Ireland put first.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention because I did check, and I asked many trade bodies. The Member will be aware that I used to be the chief executive of a major trade body. Indeed, one that was responsible for £1 billion worth of trade back and forth across the Irish Sea every week. There have still been no examples of such investment.”
“— to digital passport classification, general product safety regulations and much more, all of which are adding cost and uncertainty to consumers and businesses alike. Please.”
“I thank the honourable Member — I do call you "honourable" because we have debated these and many issues — but the key issue is that the Mercosur agreement is going to have a huge impact on farming on this island. That is not fearmongering: it is the reality of the open borders that are insisted upon by article 5. <BR /> <BR />As has already been said, the chief executive officer of Invest NI recently explained that he has no evidence of any companies coming to invest in Northern Ireland because of any perceived benefit from the Windsor framework. There is a reason for that, because instead of being in the best of both worlds, we are now in a morass of additional arcane rules, regulations and non-tariff measures on everything from labelling —”