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 35 of 50.
“I am particularly concerned that, today, the Joint Committee was supposed to sit, but I understand that it is not sitting. We are not looking at 17 days before there is clarity on these rules and regulations; we are potentially looking at a much shorter period. Now is not the time to keep information from Northern Ireland businesses or people who need to know what to put in place starting on 1 January. <BR /> <BR />I urge and ask every Member to encourage Michel Barnier, Lord Frost and the British and European Governments to make sure that there is some form of free trade agreement. If they say, "We are down to some very small areas of concern that need to be worked out", those need to be worked out rapidly. No matter what happens here in the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Northern Ireland protocol comes into place on 1 January.”
“Anybody who had the misfortune to read through the Northern Ireland Office's Command Paper that was published on Friday, as I did, to try to seek some detail of what was going to happen to Northern Ireland businesses will have been sorely disappointed.”
“The fact that we have not yet reached crisis point on the free trade agreement, and the fact that the European Union and the United Kingdom Government are still speaking, should be welcomed by everybody in this House. Those of us who listened to Micheál Martin, the Taoiseach, yesterday, on the Sunday media programmes, when he took a much more emollient line to the discussions than Simon Coveney, will also welcome that. Singling out the United Kingdom Government for sole blame throughout this situation does not work. We have reached this stage through something that is between the European Union and the United Kingdom Government. However, everybody in the Assembly should be concerned that we are 17 days away from a lot of the rules and regulations coming into place, as has been pointed out by the Chair of the Economy Committee.”
“<BR /> <BR />I thank the Economy Committee, the Committee Chair and the Minister for coming to listen to the debate today. The Ulster Unionist Party supports the motion.”
“If we do not support those companies, there will not be much of an economy left to bring back when we come out of COVID and get to the other side, hopefully by the late spring of next year. <BR /> <BR />Finally, I want to talk about our towns and city centres. The impact on our high streets was mentioned earlier — the Member who mentioned that is not here now — as was the loss of jobs from companies such as Arcadia and Debenhams. Now is the time for us to think local and to use the opportunity that we have to help rebuild our high streets and incentivise them to bring jobs back. We might even have small manufacturing back on our high streets. The important thing is that we need to revitalise our town centres and villages, and we have the opportunity to do that.”
“Time and time again, all of us as MLAs see people who are struggling with bureaucracy and forms.”
“We should appreciate the fact that even 10% of the money for the much-vaunted Boris bridge would transform our infrastructure in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Another significant area that we need to look at is our energy structure and policy. Our party is committed to zero net carbon by 2035. Given what is happening in the rest of our nation as it pushes towards electric vehicles and improvements in our green economy, that offers our manufacturing sector and our research and development sector another incentive to grow. <BR /> <BR />I cannot stand here without expressing my concerns for the excluded in Northern Ireland, such as small businesses, which are desperate for support. The Minister talked today about payments going out to people under section B.”
“I welcome the fact that the Committee today met the airport chief executives. I would like to see a commitment from all members of the Executive to point out to the Treasury that air passenger duty is a significant disincentive to investment in Northern Ireland. If we are seeking to make Northern Ireland one of the best places for small businesses and innovation, we must have connectivity links. We need to do something about the infrastructure in Northern Ireland. I am talking not only about improving broadband with Project Stratum but about improving our green networks, specifically our bus and rail networks. That needs to be developed across —.”
“There seems to be an emphasis on fintech, which is very important, but we should also support our wider manufacturing base across Northern Ireland. Many companies feel that Invest Northern Ireland is there for FDI only. Invest Northern Ireland should be the engine room and incubator for small businesses across Northern Ireland. They must be closely linked to what goes on in our universities. On some occasions, our universities demonstrate best practice, but they also demonstrate some worst practice. We should link investment in our universities with investment in our economy very closely. We need to work on areas that we can grow and develop. That should be a priority for any future strategy to get ourselves out of COVID and to deal with the problems of Brexit. <BR /> <BR />We have talked a lot about infrastructure.”
“I thank the Chair and members of the Committee for the Economy for producing this macroeconomic report. Many of the things that I will mention are areas that we have covered before, but it is vital that we emphasise some of them. The first is the development, maintenance and retention of skills, particularly as we come out of the COVID period. I have talked about the impact that those skills have on our aerospace industry. That needs to be looked at. We need to encourage the retention of those skills and abilities. I encourage the Committee and the Minister to use their best endeavours with our Government when it comes to Ministry of Defence orders and other orders in terms of aerospace, the shipyard and other significant areas. <BR /> <BR />We should invest in our small manufacturing base.”
“I thank the Minister for her answers so far. With the Minister and the Deputy Speaker's indulgence, I will ask this question: are the Executive looking to provide some sort of grant support for licensed sport and social clubs in order to help them make it through the rest of the winter? Furthermore, will she join me in wishing Mr Stewart Dickson a very happy birthday?”
“I thank the Minister for her comments so far. Can she pass on our good wishes to Edwin? It is good to see that he will be getting some first-hand knowledge of how well our NHS is coping at this moment in time. <BR /> <BR />Is there any information to confirm that waste from the Republic of Ireland is being illegally dumped in Northern Ireland?”
“Finally, I put on record the Committee's sincere appreciation of the work that credit unions do, much of it on a wholly voluntary basis, in providing responsible and affordable financial services at a local level for the benefit of their members and the communities that they serve. I commend the motion to the House.”
“Such decisions can be difficult for recently bereaved next of kin or personal representatives, because the cost of obtaining a grant of probate can often exceed the remaining estate. The Committee noted that the increase in the limit to £20,000 will enable payments to be made directly to the nominated person without partial payments being made in lieu of waiting for a court-answered grant of probate for the remaining moneys. <BR /> <BR />I also thank Mr McHugh MLA, who is a member of our Committee, for his assistance in helping the Committee come to its decision on the order. His wide experience of the credit union movement helped the Committee in its deliberations. The Committee considered the statutory rule at its meeting on 2 December and agreed that it be affirmed by the Assembly.”
“The Committee considered the policy proposals in the Administration of Estates (Small Payments) (Increase of Limit) Order 2020 at its meeting on 21 October. It considered the benefits of increasing the limit on the amount of money that may be released to the beneficiaries of a deceased person from that person's estate by certain organisations without the need for a grant of probate. <BR /> <BR />I put on record my thanks to the Irish League of Credit Unions (ILCU) for responding to the Department's consultation. Indeed, it was the only organisation to do so. The ILCU response outlined the difficulties caused by the current limit of £10,000, whereby credit unions required deceased members' families to apply for grants of probate or letters of administration from the court.”
“I thank the Minister for her remarks so far and for coming to the Assembly. On behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, I put on record our commiserations and our support for help for the workers in Debenhams and Arcadia who are approaching a particularly poor Christmas and beyond. <BR /> <BR />Minister, in August, you set up a high street task force, which should now work closely with Land and Property Services (LPS), chambers of commerce, the Federation of Small Businesses, Retail Northern Ireland and councils to come rapidly to a set of outcomes and proposals that should be brought before us here. Will the Minister commit to have that task force, which is now in place, come up with answers and to come back to the Assembly within two weeks to explain how she will support the high street, particularly in the difficult times ahead?”
“I thank the Minister for her answers so far. Does she believe that the term "hate crime" should now also encompass the term "sectarian"?”
“I thank the Minister for her answer. As she will be aware, we have not yet seen the terms of reference for the Procurement Board, and a fiscal council has not yet been established. Bearing in mind those two issues, does the Minister have any concerns, given that her Department will be one of those most closely monitored by the new Procurement Board?”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee looks forward to getting more details on this and to your talking to us about the Procurement Board at the earliest convenience.”
“You will be aware, if we ever get any details out of the Joint Committee or the Specialised Committee, that we will still have to apply EU procurement rules and may not be able to do what, you said, you wish to do with procurement in your statement. We need some guidance on that. <BR /> <BR />Bringing outside experts into the process is welcome. I cannot think of any Member who does not welcome the external expertise. However, would you consider having an independent chairman of the board? If you are chair of the board of a procurement process that looks at significant government spending, it may seem that the best will, guidance and advice from external sectors are not being utilised appropriately to get us the best out of our procurement spend.”
“Who will have primacy in the procurement process? Is the role entirely to provide policy, or is it to direct cross-Executive procurement spending? How does the Procurement Board interrelate with the services sector? Since a lot of government expenditure seems to go to the likes of PwC, Deloitte and other consultancy services, will there be a representative of the services sector on the Procurement Board? <BR /> <BR />There will be significant procurement issues, and I notice that you talk in your statement, Minister, about the importance of making sure that the Northern Ireland supply chain is given primacy.”
“I thank the Minister for his remarks and for meeting me earlier today. <BR /> <BR />As the Minister is aware, the Committee wrote to him in March about the formation of the board, and, despite the delay, we welcome his statement today. There is much detail on the formation of the board, and the Committee will want to take the time to scrutinise it closely. <BR /> <BR />We have a few initial questions that we would like you to answer. First, is forming a board under your chairmanship that will seek to control and manage £3 billion — approximately a quarter of our Executive's budget, I think — appropriate, given the other instruments that are being set up through New Decade, New Approach, particularly the fiscal council? When should we expect the fiscal council to be in position? <BR /> <BR />Where are the terms of reference?”
“<BR /> <BR />On that point Mr Deputy Speaker, and before you bring me back to the rules and regulations, I will finish by saying that the Ulster Unionist Party fully supports the amendment No. 11 and amendment No. 12 regulations.”
“Thank you very much indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker. In that case, I have made my point about the Minister for the Economy. <BR /> <BR />I will move swiftly on to the Minister of Education, who also should have been here to present these rules to us. I declare an interest as a school governor. I have been struck by the paucity of information and communication from the Department of Education to MLAs. Minister, since you are the only one who seems able to come and explain the regulations to the Assembly, will you take that point back to the Minister of Education and ask him to come before the Assembly or, better still, to talk to the schools of Northern Ireland and give them the information that they are due?”
“That is, indeed, within the restrictions, Mr Deputy Speaker.”
“Will you also ask her how she can give out advice, through her Department and Invest NI, that those people should just wait until the website updates itself? That is the level of guidance being given. That is not the kind of thing that we expect —.”
“Did I say the Health Minister? My apologies to the Health Minister. The Economy Minister and the Education Minister should have been here to answer questions. There are particular areas in amendment Nos. 11 and 12 that should have been dealt with by them. All MLAs cannot fail to be concerned about the lack of information, particularly from the Department for the Economy. Some businesspeople in Northern Ireland have been excluded, and other businesspeople have been waiting seven to eight weeks for any guidance or support. <BR /> <BR />Minister, since it seems that only you have the courage to come to the Assembly to answer questions, even for other Departments, can you specifically ask the Minister for the Economy to expedite the movement of payments to those who need them and to those who have been excluded?”
“<BR /> <BR />I note that, today, the Economy Minister and the Health Minister should have been here to provide —”
“I thank the Minister for his forbearance and for his remarks so far. I want to say this before I specifically ask the Minister a question. Just before questions to the Executive Office, there was a very powerful testimony from Mr Daniel McCrossan MLA about the Tracey family. I do not think that any MLA who was in here to hear those remarks could fail to have been moved by compassion not only for that family and all the families who have suffered from COVID but, above all, for the excellent staff who went above and beyond the call of duty to support that person in his need. I put on record from the Assembly — all Members of the Assembly — our condolences to the family and our thanks to the staff of the NHS for their outstanding work and for what they do.”
“Thank you for giving way. Today, the Education Minister was on a Zoom call that he was pushing out on Twitter. Do you think it would be more appropriate if the Education Minister were to take the time to be here to explain the regulations to Members?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Again, one of the things that I think we looked at but did not get any details on was investigating what the crime of insider trading would be. The tariff for the crime of insider trading was somewhere in the region of about seven years, along with some other criminal penalties for it. Obviously, if you looked at some of the issues that have been raised, particularly in reference to the RHI inquiry, you could very clearly seen them as insider trading, and there is definitely a requirement in that case to look specifically at where we are with the tariff.”
“The Committee was also content with amendment No 18, which is a refinement of the definition of "family members" in respect of the registration of interests. Finally, no issues were raised during Committee deliberations in relation to Clause 14 or amendment Nos 24 and 26. The Committee is content with these amendments.”
“A number of members indicated support for the aspect of the proposed amendment designed to address the issue of legitimate press briefings by special advisers and the provision of information under Freedom of Information Act requirements. When it came to the formal clause-by-clause decision, the Committee divided and agreed, by a majority of one, not to support the amendment and not to support the clause as drafted. <BR /> <BR />In relation to Clause 10, the Committee was content with the Bill sponsor’s explanation that amendment Nos 17 and 19 are proposed to secure alignment with the code of conduct provision in respect of the time period within which all Ministers and special advisers must inform the permanent secretary of the Department of Finance of their registrable interests and of any changes to those registrable interests.”
“<BR /> <BR />Similarly, during its deliberations on clause 11 and amendment No 20, the Committee considered the issue of the need for criminal offences and the extent of the sanctions proposed in both the clause as drafted and the clause as amended. There was discussion within the Committee, and concern was expressed about the principle of including a criminal offence in the clause. There was discussion in relation to the two-year maximum tariff proposed by the Bill sponsor’s amendment and on whether it would be preferable to return to the proposed five-year maximum tariff proposed in the clause as drafted. However, there were no proposals or suggestions brought forward or considered to amend clause 9 to remove or further reduce the proposed sanctions.”
“Consideration was also given to the need to accept the offer from the Department of Justice to consider any revisions to the clause in relation to the proportionality of the proposed sentences. At no time were any proposals or suggestions brought forward or considered to amend clause 9 to remove or amend the proposed sanctions. <BR /> <BR />When it came to the Committee’s formal clause-by-clause decision, the Committee supported amendment No 16, which would introduce a reasonable excuse defence and make the offence the failure to record the use of non-official systems rather than the actual use itself. The Committee was not, however, content to support the clause as amended. The Committee divided and agreed, by a majority of one, not to support the clause.”
“The Committee focused on two specific areas during its deliberations on clause 9. First, members discussed the changes proposed through the Bill's sponsor’s proposed amendment No 16 and, secondly, the matter of criminal offences. Members generally welcomed the proposed amendment in that it would change the focus of the clause from the use of non-official systems per se to the failure to record the use of non-official systems within a reasonable time period. <BR /> <BR />There was discussion within the Committee on the issue of the need for criminal offences. Concern was expressed both about the principle of including a criminal offence in the clause and in relation to the two-year maximum tariff. Members discussed the value of having a hybrid offence, as provided for under the clause.”
“The Committee also considered evidence from the Department of Justice regarding the proportionality of sentence. The Department of Justice suggested that:”
“At an early stage, the Bill's sponsor informed the Committee of his intention to bring an amendment to change the proposed offence from being the use of non-official systems and process to the failure to record the use of non-official systems and processes back into the official system within a reasonable period of time. <BR /> <BR />The Committee also spent considerable time, during its evidence sessions on both clause 9 and clause 11, in consideration of the need for and proportionality of the criminal offences proposed in these clauses. <BR /> <BR />In relation to clause 9, the Committee heard evidence from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission which recommended giving consideration to:”
“The Department of Finance view was that clause 9 could have the effect of potentially criminalising considerably more electronic communications by Ministers and civil servants than was intended by the legislation. <BR /> <BR />The Committee was cognisant of the fact that it may not always be possible for a Minister, civil servant or special adviser to access official systems and there could be occasions when the use of non-official systems may be required. There were concerns that, as originally drafted, clause 9 made it an offence for a Minister, civil servant or special adviser, when they were on official business, to use personal accounts or anything other than departmental systems.”
“It was put to the Bill's sponsor that officials, acting in the interests of the Minister and the Department outside of these parameters, would have to do so in the knowledge that they would have to construct a reasonable-excuse defence. The Bill's sponsor subsequently indicated his willingness to consider an amendment to clause 9 in relation to the construction of a reasonable excuse where unavailability of official systems may impede good government. This provision is included in amendment No 16. <BR /> <BR />The Department of Finance expressed concerns that, in its view, no electronic communication is likely to take place on wholly departmentally controlled or departmentally owned systems.”
“I cannot, however, enlighten the House on the reasons why the Committee opposed these clauses, as the opposition only became apparent at the last minute during the formal clause-by-clause decision-making stage. <BR /> <BR />The Committee had concerns in relation to the provisions in clause 9. The Bill's sponsor informed the Committee that, in bringing clause 9, the intention was to have official records to discourage people from hiding information in the event that actions may be investigated. <BR /> <BR />The Committee was concerned about the proposed requirement to always use departmental systems and email addresses and the potential for this requirement to impede good government.”
“As was the case with clause 11A, given the trying time constraints towards the end of the Committee Stage, the Committee was unable to take evidence on clause 8A. For that reason, the Committee was only able to note the amendment. <BR /> <BR />Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to address amendment Nos 16 and 20 together. These amendments relate to clauses 9 and 11, both of which propose the introduction of criminal offences and both of which were opposed by the Committee. The Committee devoted considerable time to taking evidence in relation to these two clauses and, indeed, a considerable part of the Committee report is devoted to the evidence received in relation to clauses 9 and 11.”
“Did I? My apologies. <BR /> <BR />No objections were voiced in the Committee to that proposal. However, as the Committee had not had the opportunity to consider the proposal in detail, or the Bill sponsor’s related proposal to introduce clause 8A, members were content to support clause 7 as drafted. <BR /> <BR />The Bill sponsor informed the Committee that the intention of amendment No 14 is to make clause 8 more compatible with terms used elsewhere in the Bill. The Committee was content with the explanation and supported the amendment. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 15, which proposes the introduction of clause 8A, is proposed by the Bill sponsor in conjunction with his opposition to clause 7 stand part. The Committee considered clause 8A only during its deliberations and received no formal evidence in relation to the clause.”
“The Committee noted the intention of the Bill sponsor to oppose the question that clause 7 stand part of the Bill.”
“Perhaps in his remarks the Minister can clarify whether the amendment also addresses the Department’s concern that clause 6, as originally drafted, appeared to be "unnecessarily specific". <BR /> <BR />The Committee noted the intention of the Bill sponsor to oppose the question that clause 11 stand part of the Bill.”
“The Department highlighted that, in light of the code of ethics, which places a duty on civil servants to keep accurate records, it considers that the clause "appears to be unnecessarily specific." The Committee sought clarification on what the Department meant by that and on how the code of ethics has been revised to address the issue of maintaining accurate records. The Department responded, less than helpfully, that it does not consider it appropriate to legislate in that area. <BR /> <BR />The Bill sponsor informed the Committee that amendment No 13 reduces the burden of what must be recorded and that the amendment is in response to points made by the Department of Finance.”
“It is above and beyond. <BR /> <BR />Ladies and gentlemen, the Bill's sponsor asked that the Committee consider clauses 6 to 8 together as they are a suite of provisions dealing with meetings involving Ministers and/or special advisers. Clause 6 deals with internal meetings, clause 7 with external and unscheduled meetings, and clause 8 with planned meetings with non-departmental personnel. <BR /> <BR />The Committee sought the views of the Department of Finance on the provisions of clause 6 as drafted.”
“Before I start, I pass on to my friend from South Belfast my regards to his wife and wish her very many happy birthdays. Apologies for keeping you here.”
“The Committee was content to support amendment No 22 as an appropriate addition to clause 12. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 25 to clause 14 is technical in nature and is consequential to the amendment to introduce clause 11A, on which the Committee did not come to a view.”
“The Bill's sponsor outlined that judicial reviews are, by their nature, challenging processes and that it is most likely that it would be judicial review judgements that criticise government. <BR /> <BR />As the Bill's sponsor said, the Carnegie UK Trust welcomes the provisions in clause 12 and informed the Committee that:”