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 26 of 50.
“<BR /> <BR />The Economy Minister must focus efforts on the future of our energy supplies and on security, continuity, affordability and access. Part of that discussion must be about whether our current set-up can be made fit for purpose. By any objective assessment, it is not. We also need the Communities Minister to properly identify those who are at risk, allocate future funding for continued energy relief and work cooperatively with the other Departments to create a sustainable future programme. We are approaching another election. When we eventually emerge from that, we must ensure that addressing fuel poverty is a key part of any Programme for Government: it must be in the PFG. <BR /> <BR />We look forward to hearing from contributors to the debate. I commend our motion to the House.”
“It would help to deal with the immediate challenge and show to a very sceptical population that our Executive are capable of working together cooperatively, doing what is best for our most vulnerable people. <BR /> <BR />In the longer term, we have to accept that, as we transition away from fossil fuels, Northern Ireland's housing stock is not fit for purpose. We need to closely examine how we can prevent continuing fuel poverty. We need the Finance Minister to change the building regulations to stipulate housing improvements. We also need to look at incentives to promote microgeneration and encourage the change away from the monopolistic stranglehold that the System Operator for Northern Ireland (SONI) and Northern Ireland Electricity (NIE) — aka EirGrid and the Electricity Supply Board (ESB) — have on our grid.”
“We should have the flex in our budgets to do that. If we are serious about supporting our most vulnerable, we should do it. <BR /> <BR />The maths are clear: with our baseline Budget of £12 billion, the approximately £40 million that is needed to provide an emergency energy fund represents around 0·4% of our annual spending. Surely, with some joined-up thinking, that could be allocated. The Finance, Economy and Communities Ministers could and should work together to create a means-tested winter energy emergency fund to help those who are in need. We ask all parties in the Executive to critically examine the real pressures and make some grown-up choices. It will cause pain to some Departments, but what is more important?”
“We are asking the Assembly to support us in a two-pronged approach that deals with the immediate challenge and, then, sets in place a properly thought-through future fuel poverty action plan. We may have to provide support to 180,000 to 200,000 households this winter. I will say that again: we may have to provide support to 180,000 to 200,000 households this winter. If we accept that a winter fuel allowance of around £200 is needed, that means that our Executive would have to find around £40 million. Looking at our latest monitoring round, we have not identified that yet. We recognise that this is a problem across all our nations. However, we need to make a provision for that funding in Northern Ireland by making clear that we will accept a future pressure into 2022-23, coupled with the rigorous removal of less important programmes.”
“Furthermore, the knock-on effect on our A&Es and heavily pressurised hospitals and on the well-being of many of our elderly and young people means that the impact will be hard felt across all of society. We can and must do better.”
“There is, obviously, a disconnect between what is said in the privacy of the Executive and what is said in public, but there can be no disconnect in dealing with fuel and energy poverty. We know from research that cold kills. Three years ago, it was reported that 1,500 excess winter deaths in Northern Ireland were directly attributable to living in cold, damp homes. Add on the tangential impact of COVID, the greater energy costs, and the social dislocation and disruption caused by the pandemic, and that figure may, regrettably, be much higher this year.”
“With a fuel poverty rate that is above that of the rest of our nation, a greater reliance on oil for heating, a very limited choice of electricity providers, and, at best, an intemperate climate, we have a real problem. We have to deal with the immediate problem, and, in the longer term, we need to look at how we deal with the situation. We need to take action now. It cannot be put off. <BR /> <BR />Yesterday, the Finance Minister outlined the October monitoring round. Quite rightly, there was an emphasis on healthcare. We also had what I can term only as an unseemly spat between several parties around universal credit and bringing forward schemes to fill that gap.”
“That is without doubt. It is a storm that stretches across the Western world and Europe in particular, where gas and electricity prices have risen inexorably. Despite the United Kingdom having the lowest gas per therm price, there is a shortage of supply of gas and electricity. The 100% rise in gas prices, with electricity prices escalating by a third this autumn, even before the winter hits, should have caused alarm bells to go off across the Executive. That our Utility Regulator, as early as the summer, highlighted the upwards trend in gas futures shows that the information was available. It just, unfortunately, was not acted on. <BR /> <BR />That Northern Ireland is the part of these islands most affected by fuel poverty is well recognised.”
“The impact on health, social well-being, children's welfare and education of a third or more of our population makes this a cross-cutting issue for the whole of the Northern Ireland Executive, but, in particular, it is an issue for the Finance, Communities and Economy Ministers. It is a crisis that was well foretold, coupled with the failure to address the existing challenges of fuel and energy poverty. I thank many of our Ulster Unionist Party council colleagues for raising these issues in council chambers throughout Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />The combination of gas realpolitik from Russia, a prolonged period of diminished wind energy, the restart of the Chinese manufacturing economy, and, more locally, the inadequacies of our energy sector, including its lack of robustness and resilience, has created an energy storm.”
“We are all mindful of the very real and the palpable fear that many of our most vulnerable, as well as many who, until recently, thought that they were just about managing with the challenges of emerging from COVID, are feeling about the rising costs of energy. Whether it is gas prices, electricity or the escalating cost of heating oil, there is likely to be very little respite from the impact of the global hike in energy. That some local electricity companies have raised their prices four times this year alone gives far too many people the hard choice of whether to heat their home or feed their family. <BR /> <BR />For those who are at risk, there are also the equally worrying concerns about going in to unsustainable debt, seeking credit from whatever source they can.”
“<BR /> <BR />Finally, the Committee wrote to both the Bill sponsor in Westminster and to our own Minister, lobbying in respect of the issues that I have set out, including the treatment of member costs, and urging a fairer solution for all public-sector pensioners across the UK. Perhaps the Minister will also indicate whether he anticipates any progress in that regard. As indicated, I anticipate that Committee members will either reluctantly vote in support of the motion or abstain. I further anticipate that they will eloquently set out their reasoning in that regard during the debate.”
“Additionally, members noted that, where retirees making their DCU decision have to make back contributions, they may be charged interest on those contributions, although those charges may be waived. Members also noted that the surviving relatives of deceased retirees may also be required to make back contributions, depending on their DCU choice, though, again, those charges may be waived. All of the above caused disquiet amongst members, as it seemed more than a little unfair that those additional costs will fall to schemes and their members when it is central government which is at fault. Perhaps, in the Minister's response to the debate, he will reiterate the answers that he kindly provided to the Committee around advice, interest on back contributions and relatives of deceased retirees.”
“The Committee consequently took evidence in advance of its sight of the Westminster Bill, even though it was difficult for external witnesses to comment on a Bill that they had not seen. Despite that, members took the time to consider other important issues relating to the legislation. I will deal with those now. <BR /> <BR />The Committee noted assurances from the Department that subordinate legislation and technical documentation associated with the McCloud remedy will be considered at the Assembly rather than at Westminster. The Committee sought assurances around both the provision of advice to individual retirees when they come to make their deferred choice underpin (DCU) decision and the provision of administrative assistance to the smaller pension schemes.”
“<BR /> <BR />In order to make all the changes to a large number of schemes, our Government have set a very challenging timetable, with the legislation needing to be in place by the end of this financial year. That is to support the calculation and payment of revised benefits from 2022-23. Committee members consequently accepted the Department's argument that there was indeed insufficient time to draft Northern Ireland legislation and undertake Assembly scrutiny on it prior to the key date of 1 April 2022. Thus a legislative consent motion (LCM) is the only option, if we are to provide clarity in good time for public-sector pensioners in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Standing Orders allow only 15 days for the Committee to take evidence, deliberate and report when considering legislation.”
“I will continue where I left off before we suspended for Question Time, if Members can remember where that was. It is not clear when the legal challenges might be ruled on by the courts, thus waiting around for all of this to happen would leave Northern Ireland public-sector pensioners in the lurch while pensioners in other parts of our nation received their revised pension benefits. Further to that, the onus will be on central government, not the Executive, to bring forward further remedial legislation for the legal challenges that are successful. It is more than possible that this will not be the last time that we talk about the McCloud remedy or public-sector pension revaluations in the House.”
“The apprenticeship training support from the Department for the Economy is focused on under-25-year-olds. Has the Minister had an opportunity to talk to the Economy Minister to see how we can extend that support beyond 25-year-olds? As the Minister is fully aware, one of the biggest problems with HGV licensing for under-25-year-olds is the increased cost and the difficulties with licensing and insurance costs. Has the Minister had any conversations with the Minister for the Economy about expanding that? I will put in a plug for the great Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council, which has been doing quite a lot of good work on that locally.”
“The Committee therefore felt that, as there is to be no increase in employee contributions, there was no option other than to go along with the Government's McCloud remedy and treat the extra costs as member costs. <BR /> <BR />The Committee accepted that any deviation by the Executive from the United Kingdom Government approach could lead to legal challenges, which, to date, have been directed at central government. Again, that mitigated acceptance of the McCloud remedy. In respect of the legal question, members also understand that other court challenges are planned or under way on the revaluation of public sector pension schemes. It has been suggested that the Executive could simply and prudently wait until those are resolved and then bring forward their own devolved legislation that could reflect the final legal position.”
“In principle, the Committee takes the view that the previous discriminatory protections were the responsibility of the British Government and thus that our Government should pay for the associated reparations. The Government will not do that generally, however, and they will certainly not provide additional funding for a public-sector pensions solution that would be more generous in Northern Ireland than in the rest of our country. <BR /> <BR />If the Executive were to go their own way and meet the associated costs themselves, they would have to do so from the Northern Ireland block grant. The Executive's expenditure is already under a lot of pressure, and all our money will be needed for other urgent and important matters, not least our hard-pressed health service.”
“The McCloud costs — about £700 million in Northern Ireland alone — are substantial. <BR /> <BR />The Government have also developed a solution: the so-called deferred choice underpin. That will allow affected retirees to choose, at the point of retirement, whether they wish to receive benefits from a reformed scheme or a legacy scheme. The solution will require all public-sector workers to accrue pension benefits in the same way from 1 April 2022. Crucially, the remedy will require the costs to be treated as member costs and thus to be met by the pension schemes themselves. <BR /> <BR />The Committee understands, however, that the Westminster Bill guarantees that, notwithstanding the above, there will be no increase to employee contributions as a consequence of the McCloud remedy put forward by the Government.”
“Clearly, the process of Assembly scrutiny of these important matters will always be better served by devolved legislation and judicious consideration by the Committee for Finance. For various reasons that I will discuss, however, the Committee has, with some reluctance, agreed to support the passing of the legislative consent motion, or, at least, not to oppose it. <BR /> <BR />As the Minister has indicated, the roots of all this go back to the pension reforms of 2015. In order to address demographic pressures, public-sector pension schemes were changed, and protections were put in place for certain groups nearing retirement. The courts subsequently determined that some of those protections were discriminatory. Our Government eventually agreed that a remedy, the so-called McCloud remedy, was required.”
“I thank the Minister for his opening remarks and for the related oral and written briefings that he and his officials provided to the Committee for Finance on this legislative consent motion and the relevant Westminster legislation. I also thank the public-sector trade unions who briefed the Committee on these matters on several occasions. <BR /> <BR />Public-sector pensions are important. They cost around £1·3 billion per annum in Northern Ireland alone and are a vital component of retirement provision in this jurisdiction. The changes that are being brought forward by the Westminster legislation will affect around 130,000 of our public-sector workers and retirees in Northern Ireland.”
“If I understand the statement correctly, there appears to be something of a problem with capital and a looming underspend in respect of financial transactions capital. I, therefore, ask the Minister this: how much of the originally projected £74 million of financial transactions capital spending and £170 million of RRI borrowing will be spent in 2021-22? <BR /> <BR />Finally — I am sure that the Speaker will give me this indulgence — I will ask about the spending review. The improved allocation for Northern Ireland looks quite good compared with the £12 billion baseline of resource DEL of which the Department had previously advised the Committee. Will the Minister, therefore, advise the House as to why he is disappointed with the spending review outcome?”
“I thank the Minister for his statement and for meeting me and the Deputy Chairperson earlier today to discuss the key points. <BR /> <BR />I am sure that the Finance Committee will greatly welcome the £223·6 million of resource DEL allocations, as well as the £27·8 million of capital allocations, with most of the former going to Health, including an important and well-deserved pay award for our vital health service workers. <BR /> <BR />Minister, in June, the Committee asked you about financial transactions capital and the reinvestment and reform initiative (RRI). We asked whether, owing to uncertainty in respect of capital programmes, underspends in conventional capital and financial transactions capital would lead to a reduced requirement for RRI.”
“Our party leader has written to the Minister of Agriculture and to Clare Bailey, asking both Clare and Edwin whether they can talk to Lord Deben and ask him to adjudicate between them to get a combined Bill that can deliver our requirements so that we can meet some commitments towards dealing with the climate emergency. Pushing towards that goal would be a worthy aspect of COP26.”
“We, as part of the United Kingdom, have our part to play in making the start that is needed to achieve the national goal of net zero carbon by 2050. <BR /> <BR />We are far from our First Minister and deputy First Minister's comments today that we are committed to tackling the climate emergency, building a cleaner environment and creating new green jobs. We instead have a situation in which two climate change Bills will come before the House. Those Bills should be combined so that realistic targets can be met, independent verification can be set up, a just transition can be made, and Northern Ireland can get legislation that brings it into line with the rest of these islands and beyond. <BR /> <BR />That would be a small but worthy start to our contribution to COP26, and we urge all parties to push to achieve that aim.”
“Yesterday marked the start of the COP26 summit in Glasgow. It also marked the publication of reputable, peer-reviewed research that showed that the level of global warming has risen to 1·2°C and that, with the pledges made by nations so far, we will be lucky to contain temperature rises to between 2·7°C and 3°C. That will be a catastrophe. <BR /> <BR />The Prime Minister and a large number of commentators have made it clear that action is needed now. We, as a party, strongly welcome our nation's commitment to decarbonisation and, in particular, the push to have considerable changes made by 2030. That is less than a decade away.”
“The Committee Stage is due to conclude on 2 November 2021, which will not afford enough time for stakeholders to respond to the call for evidence or for the Committee to consider the clauses of the Bill and the necessity for relevant amendments. It is, therefore, requested that, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period for the Committee Stage of the Bill be extended to 28 January 2022. The Committee is cognisant that there will be considerable pressure on plenary business at that time owing to the volume of Executive legislation. However, the Committee will endeavour to conclude and report on the Committee Stage well in advance of that date. I commend the motion to the House.”
“The Second Stage of the Defamation Bill was successfully concluded on 14 September 2021, and the Bill was referred to the Committee for Finance at that time. The Bill deals with important issues of free speech and defamation. It includes a number of provisions that some may find contentious.”
“I thank the First Minister and the deputy First Minister for providing the information today. With reference to the First Minister's previous comments, I am glad to see that a new public information campaign is being rolled out. He will be fully aware of the issues around the anti-vaxxers and the COVID deniers who are out there. What more concrete things could we do? Will you call on all Members of the Assembly and, indeed, everybody in public life to tell everybody to get vaccinated as we are potentially heading for another outbreak?”
“Thank you very much for giving way and for your digression. I want to bring us back to the motion that we are debating. Will the Member accept the fact that there are really strong concerns in Poland, Slovenia, the Baltic states, Germany, France and Italy about democratic accountability in the European Parliament and the European institutions? Why would we want to negotiate to be part of that when the states that are part of the European Union cannot get a say? Why would we wish to be part of that?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member agree that we should probably have something a bit more concrete than the method, proposed in the non-papers, of using a website as the way in which the Assembly is to understand what legislation is coming in its direction?”
“Quite frankly, that just sounds like EU gobbledygook to me.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I congratulate her on her promotion to being the new Chair of the Executive Office Committee. As the new Chair, can she explain what role the Northern Ireland Executive will have in a:”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. <BR /> <BR />Far too many forget that we are the guardians of the Belfast Agreement. Making sure that the Assembly has a voice and an influence is indeed a worthy task for Maroš, Lord Frost and everybody.”
“We are told that the European Union is a guardian of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement; we are told that the British Government are guardians of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement; but we — the Assembly and Executive — are guardians of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement as well. We should be able to have a say in what happens to Northern Ireland.”
“I do not think that anybody thinks that a degree of accountability or responsibility was passed to the Assembly. The Member will recall the numerous times when the previous First Minister was in position — sorry, the previous-but-two First Ministers — on which I said to her that one of the things that Northern Ireland should push for was our own ability to trigger article 16 or to trigger those concerns. That was turned down by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. Where is the position that we have an actual say in what will happen to us and where we go? <BR /> <BR />Bear it in mind that this is about the peace process. It is about the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement in all its strands.”
“It then talks about participation, saying, basically, "You will be allowed to come to the meeting, but you will not have a veto on anything that affects Northern Ireland. You will not be able to amend anything that affects Northern Ireland, and you will not be in a position to put a stop to anything that affects people in Northern Ireland, but you can be invited to go. You can go to Brussels. You can sit at the back and have your head patted or whatever. You will be put in the position of being there as window dressing". That is not transparency. That is not openness. That is not democratic accountability. It is none of those things.”
“<BR /> <BR />If you look at the six items that have been raised, you will see that the first one — I talked to Maroš Šefcovic last week about a list — is about increasing transparency. They will do that by a website. The second item is about the work of the Joint Committee working group. That is item number two, and it merely explains what the Joint Committee working group does. It does not give it any additional work. The paper talks about "dedicated fora" but does not say what those dedicated fora will be or what we will do in the dedicated fora apart from talking. The paper then talks about a timetable for meetings. This is the European Union. We are being told that a timetable for meetings is a major concession.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention, and thank you very much for the extra minute, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Member will be fully aware that we have said time and time again that we do not want to see any borders, North or South, east or west. That is where we want to be. Allow me to move on. <BR /> <BR />The crux of the problem needs to be resolved, as has been identified by others, by intensive talks that, at the least, should include the parties who sit by right in the Executive. They should have direct involvement in the talks. As for the better communication and involvement with the EU institutions laid out in the non-paper, it is not good enough just being an observer.”
“<BR /> <BR />While we welcome the recognition from Maroš Šefcovic and Lord Frost that the protocol has failed and that it patently does not uphold its supposedly overriding principle to support the Belfast Agreement in all its parts, we recognise that both statements last week set out negotiation positions that will move. Having been told for months by the EU, Coveney, Stephen Farry et al that the so-called concessions in the original protocol were generous ways in which to make Northern Ireland work, that has all been seen to be patent nonsense. There is much amendment to be made if we are ever to have an agreement that recognises the central tenet of Northern Ireland's being an integral part of the United Kingdom while maintaining, on a minimalist risk approach, access to the single market.”
“I thank the Chairperson of the Economy Committee for tabling the motion. I rise on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party to support the amendment. We will not support the original motion. However, we note that the party opposite has, at long last, recognised that its policy and that of the Alliance Party, the SDLP and the Green Party for the full and rigorous implementation of the protocol in all its parts was completely flawed. Indeed, we and many people across Northern Ireland recall those parties' leaders driving down to Dublin for a photocall with Simon Coveney during the COVID outbreak. We should all now recognise that the protocol, even with the amendments proposed by the EU, is a failed treaty that does not enjoy the support of much of the business, economic and pro-Union communities in Northern Ireland.”
“The Member is obviously fully aware of the role of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the international arbitration system that is already set out. Would that not be a more apposite method? It would not bring in either the European Court of Justice or the Supreme Court; in fact, it is independent arbitration. Would that not be better?”
“I thank the Member for raising the issue, because, as Hansard will show, over the past three years, in virtually every debate in the Chamber, I have mentioned the problems with the European Court of Justice.”
“Minister, have you set any targets for a reduction in the number of arm's-length bodies? Have you discussed with the independent fiscal council how we can reduce the overall administrative burden of our arm's-length bodies?”
“None of that has been laid in the paper or in the non-papers that have been brought before us. <BR /> <BR />Mr Speaker, we are approaching the three-minute mark. I know we will have the opportunity to talk about the matter this afternoon. However, given the remarks of both Lord Frost and Maroš Šefcovic, we have made a start, but we are on a journey, and there is a long way to go until we get rid of this invidious protocol and get something that works for the people of Northern Ireland.”
“If we are in a situation where SPS items are staying in Northern Ireland or being moved to the United Kingdom as a whole, there is no need for those checks. That is self-evident. We have started on a journey, and we need to continue on that journey. <BR /> <BR />We note very clearly that there has been no discussion about the role of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), which, again, is fundamental and goes to the question of democratic accountability. Last week, I had a discussion with Maroš Šefcovic about the non-paper's position on improved democratic accountability here in the Northern Ireland Assembly. That would mean our having the ability to actually veto or amend legislation or to be in a position to fully understand it and have those views represented.”
“The first thing we need to recognise is that, at long last, both the British Government, through Lord Frost, and the EU, through Maroš Šefcovic, have recognised that the protocol is not working. There is no way that the recommendations made by the European Union would have been made if there was not a recognition that the protocol has failed and continues to fail day in, day out. <BR /> <BR />The fact that the non-papers point to a reduction in customs duties and sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) checks suggests a direction of travel that should be followed through on. If there is no risk, there should be no checks. There is no need to have 50% of all goods coming into Northern Ireland checked. If the goods are only staying in Northern Ireland, none of them should be checked. The same goes for SPS checks.”
“I thank Dr Archibald for bringing the matter to the House. <BR /> <BR />First, I will make some remarks on Sir David Amess, because today, like some Members of the Assembly, we should be at the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly (BIPA). Sir David was an associate member of that assembly, and it is sad that, in the circumstances, it was not able to sit. However, we fully understand that. I pass on my condolences and those of my fellow members of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly to his family. It is something that we must all reflect on. <BR /> <BR />I will move to the remarks made in the earlier part of our conversation today when we talked about what we are doing about the protocol in particular and the issues connected to it.”
“First Minister, will you outline what sanctions have ever been taken against any Minister for a breach of the ministerial code? Have any penalties been applied, at any stage, to any Minister for a breach of the ministerial code?”
“We need to invest to make sure that we have everything, including truck stops, so that it is a much more attractive business. Those are the kinds of things we need to look at. <BR /> <BR />Finally, we should encourage everybody to seriously think about what we are doing to make Northern Ireland as attractive as possible for people to come to. We have seen the benefits that migrant labour brings to Northern Ireland's health service, our agriculture sector and, as my learned friend from Strangford said earlier, our cultural industries. Those are the things we have to do. Northern Ireland is a great place to come to and live in. We should encourage that. <BR /> <BR />I thank the Chair of the Economy Committee for tabling the motion, but I do not think we are in a position to support it.”