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 25 of 50.
“I would really like to hear what the Minister has to say about the York Street interchange because, yet again, we have heard nothing about what is happening with that. That deals with the connectivity to the ports, which is vital and needs to be looked at. <BR /> <BR />One Member talked about the importance of green hydrogen. I agree that we cannot have grey or blue hydrogen; we need green hydrogen.”
“Many of us have seen today the less than stellar performance of unity amongst the Executive, but it is vital that the Economy Minister, the Infrastructure Minister and the Finance Minister work closely together to make sure that we achieve that. It can be achieved, and we should do it. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the Minister's remarks today about the Union connectivity report. Speaking as probably the only Member of the Assembly who has been at the bottom of Beaufort's Dyke, although not intentionally, I have to say that Boris's bridge or tunnel was a non-starter, but what is important is Union connectivity and making sure that we have proper infrastructure that meets our decarbonisation targets. <BR /> <BR />There are opportunities here to improve road infrastructure.”
“Frankly, it is an utter disgrace, and the fact that it has reached that point should concern everybody in the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />Secondly — this is a significant point — I want to send a message to the Finance Minister — I make another declaration of interest as Chair of the Finance Committee — that we are in charge of building regulations. In the rest of our nation, we have already seen a push towards making sure that every building that will be built or modified by 2030 will have to have electric charging points built into its design. As an Assembly, we should ensure that that happens, and I give my commitment as Chair of the Finance Committee that I will push the Finance Minister to make sure that we get to that position, but we need the support of all Executive Ministers.”
“I thank the Committee for its diligence in bringing this valuable report before the Assembly. As my colleague Roy Beggs said, the Ulster Unionist Party welcomes the report. We particularly wish to see decarbonisation of our transport network and, indeed, decarbonisation, full stop. I declare an interest, as I, too, was at COP26. I was particularly interested in what our nation is doing about getting to net zero carbon as quickly as we can, the effort that is being put into decarbonisation and the importance of the move towards EVs. However, there are some fundamental issues that I would like the Minister to address. <BR /> <BR />We have already alluded to the first issue, which is the situation with the ESB and the electric charging system across Northern Ireland.”
“Thank you very much for giving way. I apologise to both the Member and the Minister, because, unfortunately, I have to head off to get jabbed. Thank you very much for your contribution to the debate. I would not like the Minister to think that I was being disrespectful. The Health Minister has instructed me to go and get jabbed, so I am going to do it.”
“The Bill may well pass its Second Stage, and members of the Committee will set out their differing views with their usual eloquence and alacrity.”
“More retrospective legislation may be on its way to correct for localised restrictions support scheme (LRSS) payments, which were made ultra vires. <BR /> <BR />As indicated in the previous debate, the Bill has materialised after almost no prior consultation with key businesses or local government stakeholders. The majority of Committee members view that as a bad precedent. As the Bill progresses to its amending stages, the Committee will endeavour to use the concluding weeks of the mandate to correct that and to seek the views of key stakeholders in order to inform the later stages of the Bill. Minister, as I said in the previous debate on accelerated passage, the Committee will work closely with you and your Department to achieve that. <BR /> <BR />The Committee has not formally agreed a position on the Bill.”
“It is not a guarantee. <BR /> <BR />The Bill also applies the constraint on rates valuation appeals retrospectively. I am not aware of there being much legislation passed by the House that applies measures retrospectively. At its heart, that seems unfair. At present, if a business buys a premises, it takes on the rates burden with a particular understanding of its right to appeal the relevant valuation. Not only is the Department now seeking to change that but it is seeking to backdate the change. The Committee can understand why that is proposed, and members do not have an alternative yet. That said, it is reasonable to say that all members are concerned about that and the precedent that it might set.”
“<BR /> <BR />Further to the finances of the Bill, the Minister advised us of a £50 million Barnett consequential that he wants a future Executive to ring-fence, particularly for businesses. I do not doubt the Minister's sincere wish to ring-fence that money, but as it refers to a future Executive, it is just that — a wish. We have not seen any of the detail. If I have that wrong, I hope the Minister will correct me. The Committee would love to see any correspondence from the Treasury that confirms that the £50 million will be coming in our direction. Perhaps in their contributions, Members from other parties will also indicate whether, if their party finds itself with the relevant portfolio in the next mandate, they will grant the Minister's wish and pay that money to our hard-pressed businesses, because it is a wish.”
“<BR /> <BR />Given the changing situation, it is difficult to apply the usual approach to business rates valuations and the associated appeals process. Other parts of our nation are in the process of simply doing away with the impact of the pandemic as the basis for appeal. That approach, which is replicated in the Bill, gives us all, as Members, a degree of concern. First, it seems a little unfair to entirely take away an element of the appeals process. The Department argues that if that does not happen, there will be a deluge of appeals and a loss of income of some £255 million may follow. I wonder if there may be some middle way that might, in exceptional circumstances, allow the avenue of appeal whilst limiting the financial exposure for local government. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that in his winding-up speech.”
“The pandemic has clearly affected the above. All of us, in our constituencies, our market towns and our city centres, can see the impact of the pandemic, from the missing and much-missed anchor tenants, to the small traders who did not survive, the reduced, on occasion, Monday morning traffic flows and the diminished weekday footfall. However, we can also see a different side of things. Thankfully, there appears to be an increase in weekend shopping, and we can see the growing Christmas high street spending around us. There is clearly a mixed picture, with a few business sectors having experienced consistently strong turnover during the pandemic and others being very much in recovery mode. Nonetheless, consumer and business confidence in the fundamentals of our local economy will grow and confidence will return as the pandemic wanes.”
“The basis for appeal appears to be quite broad, and it is designed to be a catch-all for the use, occupation, state of businesses or other:”
“As things began to return to something that looked like normality, the collection of business rates resumed. As the Minister pointed out, under normal circumstances, businesses would be able to appeal their rates valuation under article 39A of the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977.”
“For now, I will talk about 2020 and the start of the pandemic. Then, the restrictions were followed with support packages, including business support grant schemes and business rates holidays. Several billion pounds was provided by our Government, and many millions of pounds found their way through those measures to our hard-pressed businesses. By and large, those schemes appear to have been successful and seem to have kept many, but, unfortunately, not all, of our important home-grown businesses afloat. <BR /> <BR />Non-domestic rates provide a vital income — I do not think that anyone could disagree — for local government and the Executive. The rates holiday scheme protected those sources of income and gave everybody a breathing space.”
“I thank the Minister for his opening remarks on the Non-domestic Rates Valuations (Coronavirus) Bill. I also record the Committee's thanks for the oral and written briefings on the Bill that were provided by his Department. <BR /> <BR />The Bill is designed to deal with the unexpected situation relating to non-domestic rates following the imposition of coronavirus restrictions. As we all recall, in response to the pandemic, restrictions on businesses had to be applied. We had all hoped, of course, that that was all very much in the past tense and that future restrictions would be avoided through the good offices of our health workers, the continued roll-out of the excellent vaccination programme, and the application of sensible precautions. I will leave further discussion of the current state of the pandemic to another time.”
“As the Committee Chairman — obviously, I do not expect the motion on accelerated passage to go through — I assure you that the Committee will work assiduously to make sure that we give the legislation the appropriate scrutiny. We will ensure that we get through it as quickly as we can and that, going forward, it is acceptable and proper legislation. Minister, you have that assurance from me as the Committee Chair. Looking around, I think that I can safely say that the rest of the Committee are fully supportive of me saying that.”
“<BR /> <BR />There does not seem to be a necessity for accelerated passage, so, for the above reasons, the Ulster Unionist Party cannot support accelerated passage. Doing so would abdicate the responsibility that we as Members of the legislative Assembly are charged with by the people of Northern Ireland. We can and should allow proper and detailed consideration of the legislation. Not to do so would be a failure by us all collectively.”
“That is because whatever consultation there would have been would, most likely, have been against what the Department was seeking. That was explained to the Committee in some of the most frank evidence that it has received. Members can rest assured that we as a Committee were unhappy with that and have written separately to stakeholders to ask them for their views. From the — albeit limited — replies that we have received, it is safe to say that there was considerable antipathy to the proposed legislation. Finally, Members should plan to grant accelerated passage only by exception, in extremis. That we do it with seemingly monotonous regularity, especially around budget and finance Bills, sets a default pattern that we, as legislators, should resist.”
“However, I do not doubt the belief in the Department that that is the case, although, from previous experience, belief might not be enough, regrettably. <BR /> <BR />We are being asked to accept four things. First, we are being asked that there should be no right of appeal, as the clauses point out, for "any matter directly or indirectly" due to COVID, as you will see if you read the Bill. That raises the fundamental question, "What would be allowable over this period?". Secondly, this is retrospective legislation, but, as pointed out by the head of LPS, even if the legislation were passed in the next mandate, it would still be retrospective. What is the need to rush the legislation through without scrutiny? Thirdly, there has been no consultation.”
“Thank you for updating that, Minister. Again, we have not been able to probe or validate that figure or the implications of it for local government. Regrettably, many of us who look back to the RHI era tend to treat such figures with a degree of sometimes healthy scepticism or otherwise. In the absence of consultation from outside the Civil Service and with accelerated passage, the Committee would be unable to challenge or probe further that figure and would be unable to quantify the real figure. Equally, you will have heard that £50 million may or may not be made available by Treasury as a ring-fenced departmental expenditure limit (DEL). We would like to assert that that will be the case, but we have not seen any correspondence from HM Treasury to that effect.”
“It is safe to say that our Committee has developed an effective working relationship with Land and Property Services (LPS) and, in particular, Ian Snowden. His evidence to the Committee was, unlike that of some who have come before us, frank and clearly delivered, albeit unpalatable to many of us. He made it clear that consultation had not been carried out as, in all likelihood, the outcome would have been contrary to what the Department wished. He was frank about that. The fear that LPS would be subject to legal action by a wide variety of claimants was based on briefings that had been received from across the rest of our nation but that we have been unable to fully validate. <BR /> <BR />Members, as well as many of our councils, will also have been briefed about the potential shortfall of £255 million.”
“I am not suggesting that the latter is the case in respect of this request for accelerated passage, but it is very clear that we have not been given sufficient time to scrutinise the proposed legislation.”
“As has been stated, Members will realise that this is a disquieting and unusual piece of legislation. While, throughout COVID, we have been aware of the need to act with speed and, in some cases, retrospectively, we have done that under the imperatives of probable health and potential economic shocks. On many occasions across the House, we have heard about our antipathy for rushed legislation. Indeed, the imperative for effective scrutiny of legislation was highlighted in the lessons identified from the renewable heat incentive (RHI) debacle. The issue raised was that ineffective scrutiny was conducted because information was either inadvertently or deliberately held from Members of this legislature.”
“As the Chairman of the Committee, on behalf of my party, I declare that we abstained. The members who abstained were in the majority. We abstained because, when it was put to a vote, we had insufficient information to base our thoughts on and we needed to consult our parties. In summary, it is fair to say that none of us likes the Bill, but most of us will simply have to keep our own counsel when it comes to its accelerated passage. However, shortly, I will elucidate my own party's position. I expect that some members of the Committee will eloquently and quite properly set out a strident position either for or against the motion. We will await the outcome of the Lobbies. <BR /> <BR />That concludes my remarks on behalf of the Committee. I now wish to add some further comments as an Ulster Unionist MLA and my party's finance spokesman.”
“The Department has failed to consult, has burned up all the scrutiny time and has attempted to bounce the Assembly into passing retrospective legislation that limits an important appeals process — and all of that at the eleventh hour of this Assembly's mandate. <BR /> <BR />There are important fundamentals in the Bill that are worthy of further consideration. I cannot necessarily promise that, if a short Committee Stage were held in the concluding weeks of this mandate, we would come up with viable alternatives. However, I can promise that, if there is a Committee Stage, we will use the limited time well and do our best to get to the bottom of all these issues. <BR /> <BR />Despite all the foregoing, the Committee voted against opposing accelerated passage.”
“Most of us do not accept the argument that, because there is no legal obligation, there is no need to consult. I will say that again: the argument is that there is no legal obligation and, therefore, no need to consult. Just think about that, Members of the Assembly. That is clearly wrong: stakeholders always deserve to be told about departmental policy, and that should happen long before a Bill appears. <BR /> <BR />We have also listened to our constituents. Some of them feel that the measures are being unnecessarily rushed through. Some members of the Committee also feel that it is a dangerous precedent.”
“The equivalent Westminster legislation contained other provisions, which the Economy Committee considered in May and the House voted on in June. Why has the Department taken so long to bring those provisions to the Assembly? Why has the Department chosen, until very recently, not to consult business stakeholders and local government? All members of the Committee feel uncomfortable about what the Bill does. All members of the Committee might have appreciated more time to scrutinise, to run through the alternatives and, most importantly, to listen to the stakeholders who will be affected. <BR /> <BR />The Committee listened to the Department's reasoning. Quite frankly, members cannot understand the delays and the absence of consultation.”
“What is the problem with accelerated passage for the Bill? The Bill may prove to be both necessary and unable to be amended. The promise of a ring-fenced £500 million Barnett consequential may go some considerable way to easing its impacts on the hotels, B&Bs, pubs and shops that are affected. Further delay may even have unexpected consequences in respect of speculative business rates increases by some district councils. All of that tends to militate in favour of granting accelerated passage. The problem is that this is an important piece of legislation that applies financially significant changes retrospectively. It also completely does away with the single but important element of the rates valuation appeals process. <BR /> <BR />The Department has been aware of this looming problem for some time.”
“<BR /> <BR />It would be remiss of me not to thank the Minister for the oral briefing from officials on 3 November 2021 and for a number of detailed written responses to the Committee on relevant issues. The Minister also informally briefed me, as Chairperson of the Committee, on the issue on 19 October. It is nonetheless unfortunate that a public oral briefing for the Committee that was scheduled for 17 November could not go ahead for unavoidable reasons. Had it happened, there might have been more certainty among members of the Committee today.”
“I thank the Minister for his remarks. He has helpfully summarised the key points about, and the background to, the Non-domestic Rates Valuations (Coronavirus) Bill. I do not propose to go into the Bill's principles, as we will have the opportunity to do that at Second Stage. Suffice it to say that the Bill amends the grounds for appeal against non-domestic rates valuations. It does so retrospectively and in respect of the impact of the coronavirus pandemic. The Department has indicated that that is necessary in order to secure income for councils and the Executive from business rates and to avoid a potential deluge of appeals, largely from hotels, bed and breakfasts, pubs and, indeed, some shops. The legislation is understood to match provisions in England, Wales and Scotland.”
“We welcome the steady progress that has been made in issuing those important payments. Will the Minister provide an update on how many claims in addition to the independent sector, he expects, will be received from contractors such as GP practices, dentists, pharmacists and opticians?”
“Here is a suggestion of a simple action: the Finance, Economy and Infrastructure Ministers should replicate the legislation from England, make a commitment to match the English roll-out programme and commit to holding the monopoly supplier, ESB, to doing what it was supposed to do. More importantly, they could even, given the huge expanse of EV charging that is needed, break that uncompetitive and, frankly, anti-environmental contract, open up the market to others and look at how we might incentivise others to compete effectively.”
“<BR /> <BR />Adding to the chaotic, bureaucratic mix is the barely believable fact that, having been the only place across these islands with no climate emergency legislation, we are now trying to pass two Bills, with their sponsors, including the Agriculture Minister, Mr Edwin Poots, seemingly unable even to agree to merge the requirements to get a workable piece of legislation in place. <BR /> <BR />The time is now for the Executive to demonstrate some joined-up thinking. While the rest of our nation is — pardon the pun — powering ahead, we continue to wallow and to grasp at platitudes rather than take action.”
“The lack of a joined-up approach means that we have a much-delayed energy strategy that still has to appear from the Economy Minister, Gordon Lyons. We have a chaotic attempt, or, I should say, a virtually non-existent attempt, by the Infrastructure Minister, Nichola Mallon, to hold to account the monopoly supplier of public charging points, the Electricity Supply Board (ESB), for even maintaining the charges that it was subsidised to provide in the first place. We have planning regulations coming from the Finance Minister, Conor Murphy, that should be amended to reflect all the changes that are needed in order to allow us to future-proof our housing and building stock. As we on the Finance Committee know, however, we have seen no evidence of that so far.”
“Today, the Prime Minister is announcing that he is bringing in legislation in England that will make it the law to install electric vehicle (EV) charging points at all new buildings, new-build supermarkets and workplaces, and buildings that are undergoing major renovations. It is a move that will see 145,000 new charging points installed each year. Regrettably, that change in legislation is happening in only England. We in Northern Ireland are, again, lagging very badly behind. The move towards the ban on the sale of internal combustion engine vehicles is changing the market for domestic vehicles and is to be warmly welcomed. That that will occur by 2030, which is just over eight years away, shows that a forward-leaning policy can do much to tackle the climate emergency. In Northern Ireland, however, the story is very different.”
“We have the opportunity to have a three-year Budget. Will the Minister explain what discussions he has had on it with Ministers and how he will link the Budget to the Programme for Government or, more properly, to its delivery?”
“Thank you very much for your remarks so far, Minister. I had the opportunity to meet quite a few representatives from other regions of our nation. Obviously, one of the biggest questions from COP26 is about the electric charging network. The real concern we have is that ESB is not up to scratch. Indeed, ESB is not even capable of providing the bare minimum of a service. Can the Minister outline what she is doing to get ESB to do what it is supposed to do now, never mind increasing the network?”
“Despite the backsliding by India and China, there is no doubt that there is now an impetus on the world to accelerate moves towards zero net carbon and to make substantial changes in the next decade. That raises a real question for us here: when will we get our act — or should I say "Acts"? — together? We can hardly criticise China, India, Russia and Saudi Arabia if we cannot agree a single Climate Change Bill in the Assembly. As iterated by my party leader, we urge the AERA Minister and the leader of the Green Party to use the good auspices and parties of Lord Deben to come up with a compromise Bill in the short time that the Assembly has left to legislate and to start tackling the real crisis of the climate emergency.”
“I make a declaration as a member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I am the lead on our response to the climate emergency and COP26. <BR /> <BR />Saturday resulted in the latest COP declaration. Expectations had been raised, but, regrettably, at the last, the commitment regarding phasing out the most polluting of fuels — coal — shifted and was downgraded to an aspiration. That has been the headline, but we should not forget what has been achieved. The goal of achieving temperature rises of no more than 1·5°C is still — just — alive. <BR /> <BR />Those of us who attended COP26 were, I hope, struck by two things. The first is a global acceptance that we are in a climate emergency; even the visiting Chinese, American, Saudi and Russian delegations showed that. The second is that there is a willingness to try.”
“We in the Ulster Unionist Party stand in condemnation of both incidents. I declare an interest as a member of Unite. Minister, we stand in full solidarity with the workers of Translink and with the community of Rathcoole. We have heard a lot about reassuring the people from Translink, but many members of the community in Rathcoole feel as though they have been marginalised. They would like somebody to reach out to them now and say that public services can be restored to them as quickly as possible. Will you, as Minister, bearing in mind that Rathcoole is part of your constituency, reach out to that community now and say that we will restore these services as quickly as we can? Those people feel that they are being unfairly demonised, as we already heard from Members from east Belfast and Newtownards.”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. Of course, we will be supportive of the green growth strategy as it comes forward. <BR /> <BR />I note, with interest, that the Minister talked about the blue economy. When we were talking about issues to do with green hydrogen and methane, he rightly called out the very innovative approach taken by Artemis Technologies, looking towards the marine sector as well. <BR /> <BR />The Minister will be aware that the United Kingdom is pushing towards an increasing part of our GDP being spent on research and development to bring it up to 2·4%, but Northern Ireland is at the abysmally low level of 0·8%. Can the Minister outline his vision for bringing together all of the Executive and all the sectors across Northern Ireland to make sure that we capitalise on both the ammonia project and green hydrogen?”
“Minister, I noted that you talked about the move towards waste management and the proof of recycling and getting towards the 100% mark. When I was at COP26 last week, I had the opportunity to talk to some of the many councils that are having significant problems with waste management, particularly the long-term incineration contracts that they are tied into. They are trying to get out of those contracts. When the Minister has talked to his Executive colleagues, has he had a chance to ask the Infrastructure Minister to make a decision about the Hightown incinerator and get that moving now? That has a detrimental effect on our push to improve recycling across Northern Ireland.”
“I thank the Minister for his statement, and, on behalf of my party, I welcome the environment strategy.”
“I make a declaration of interest as an ex-chief executive of the British Irish Chamber of Commerce. Has any analysis been done of the diversion of trade that has occurred? It is quite obvious that the reduction in the movement of goods between places like Holyhead and Liverpool to Dublin has, in some respects, been replicated by movements from Northern Ireland into the Irish Republic. Have you had an opportunity to talk to any of the major supermarket chains about that dislocation of the logistics chain and the fact that we have a circular economy that seems to be falling flat?”
“Interestingly, the research from the University of Liverpool showed that very many people in Northern Ireland — indeed, the majority — want no barriers between Great Britain and Northern Ireland so that there are no barriers across our United Kingdom. <BR /> <BR />It has been estimated that the protocol has cost us £820 million so far. Will the junior Minister tell us why we are insistent on not calling out the EU for its intransigence as well?”
“The people of Northern Ireland need solutions to the many problems caused by the protocol and not heightened tensions and the use of warlike rhetoric.”
“He also stated to senior EU diplomats face to face, as have some of us here, that they must be mindful of rhetoric and megaphone diplomacy, particularly when they bypass elected representatives in Northern Ireland. It is inflammatory, to say the least, for EU officials to make such remarks. What is required is rational, fully inclusive dialogue that recognises that, for many, the protocol is not working and does not enjoy the support of quite a few of us in our society, and it is progressively poisoning the body politic here. That has to be the starting point. <BR /> <BR />Maroš Šefcovic has the opportunity today to address those issues directly. All Members of the Assembly should join us in asking him to do so.”
“The use of such language not only is outrageous but follows a pattern of language and rhetoric used by EU officials and the likes of some Irish politicians who should know better, including Leo Varadkar and Simon Coveney, who regularly use images of facilities destroyed in attacks by republican terrorists as so-called evidence to support their desire for the creation of the protocol. We have seen today that those are entirely counterproductive acts that have undermined support for the Belfast Agreement. <BR /> <BR />My party leader spoke directly to the EU ambassador to the UK, Maroš Šefcovic, Simon Coveney and the Taoiseach about that very issue.”
“Following on from the remarks of my friend from South Belfast, I rise to raise the very concerning issue of the remarks made at the weekend by a senior EU diplomat:”
“I thank the Minister for her remarks so far. Is there any way in which the Minister can look through her Department and look at quantifying — I heard what her colleague from Upper Bann stated — the level that we should be looking at? There is an indication that there are additional moneys there, and we will be aware of some of the extra moneys that are likely to come over the next three years that we are going to get an indication of. Can she look at what the quantum is likely to be and put in a combined bid for that?”