Eóin Tennyson
Upper Bann · Alliance Party · Northern Ireland
“Those who have come forward only now, saying that they are not surprised or that they always suspected that something was wrong, simply to use this as part of a grudge match and settle old scores, should hang their heads in shame, as should those who have attempted to use this matter for party political point-scoring in the Chamber today.…”
“Jeffrey Donaldson and Jeffrey Donaldson alone is responsible for his heinous abuse. We know that abusers lurk in the shadows and that this could have befallen any organisation, community or political party. The allegations that came to light in the 'Spotlight' documentary, however, go beyond the actions of one individual.”
“Scandal after scandal has shown that those who push puritanical, sanctimonious and hostile rhetoric towards the LGBTQ+ community are guilty of nauseating hypocrisy. All Members, including those in the DUP, should reflect on that, on the harm caused, apologise to the LGBTQ+ community and change course.”
“We owe it to them to ensure that, never again, will an institution be prioritised over the protection of victims and to make policy change to ensure that faith-based counselling is regulated, safeguarding procedures are followed and, importantly, that reforms are made to our RSE system so that, never again, will a child or young person no…”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is an unconventional intervention, but we are in unprecedented times. I ask for your assurance that you will engage fully with any investigations or inquiries that come about as a result of matters that were raised over the weekend.”
“The response from statutory agencies is consistently inadequate. Despite it being an offence under article 87 of the Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, we see no enforcement action whatever from the Department for Infrastructure. I call on the Infrastructure Minister to set out what she will do to start to tackle the issue.”
The complete record
Every one of 888 lines we hold for Eóin Tennyson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 18.
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. The motion provides an opportunity for the Assembly to take a stand against the disgraceful suggestion from the UK and Irish Governments that an interlocutor be appointed to scope out and lay the groundwork for a formal process of engagement with active paramilitary organisations. Paramilitarism is a stain on our society for which there should be zero tolerance, acceptance or acquiescence. It is bewildering that, 27 years on from the Good Friday Agreement and more than 30 years since the ceasefires, anyone in the Governments, or anyone in the Chamber, would countenance sitting down and negotiating with those organisations as though they are either legitimate stakeholders or credible community representatives.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I agree with his remarks so far. When his party's Ministers met the Loyalist Communities Council (LCC), which purports to represent active paramilitary organisations, did they ask the LCC to hand over any details of those who were involved to the PSNI?”
“Whilst I will be the first to acknowledge the huge funding constraints facing the Executive, it is also the case that failure to intervene now could be more expensive in the long term, as otherwise viable businesses go to the wall as a result of the pressures that they face. I hope that, in future years, the rates order is not the only means of revenue raising that we debate in the Assembly. I invite the Minister to update the House on his position in respect of the powers that he is seeking through the permanent fiscal framework, if he is in a position to do so.”
“However, it is regrettable that we are, once again, considering a rates order in the absence of any meaningful reform of rating reliefs. It remains the Alliance Party's view that the strategic review of rating policy over 10 years lacks the urgency or the independence that is necessary to deliver a progressive rating system that is fair and supports economic growth. The Department should, instead, move to establishing an holistic, independent review of reliefs without further delay. <BR /> <BR />In addition, interim support measures are absolutely necessary to support, in particular, the hospitality, retail and leisure sectors, which have not been in a position to benefit from reliefs available elsewhere in these islands.”
“The £129 million that was invested in GP services for multidisciplinary teams, the speeding up of our justice system and the demand for special educational needs, for example, flowed from that financial package and is dependent on us reaching our conditions around revenue raising. Therefore the decision that we are taking today is not an unimportant one. It is important that we take these decisions seriously and recognise the consequences were we not to meet those objectives. <BR /> <BR />I support the approach of decoupling the domestic and non-domestic rates, given the enormous pressure facing businesses as a result of the National Insurance hikes that were introduced by the UK Government: of course, part of the reason why the decoupling is so necessary is the huge cost that will be borne by the public sector in that respect.”
“I am not going to comment on the difficulty, or otherwise, of individual decisions, but the reality is that there is an onus on the Executive to find that money. All Ministers need to look within their Department at the means that they have to raise money through the fees that they charge for services, for example, so that we get a balanced approach and minimise the burden that we place on people through the rating system. That is what has been attempted to date. I agree with the wider ambition in respect of going further with fiscal devolution and progressive revenue raising, but it is important to highlight the fact that there would be a consequence were we not to meet that target.”
“The Department's target on gross collectable rates for 2024-25 was set at 93%, translating to £1·8 billion by the end of the current financial year, and, in the 2025-26 draft Budget, it is estimated that rates revenue will generate almost £730 million for Departments. <BR /> <BR />Rates are not only important for investment in our public services; there is a requirement, from the financial package, for the Executive to raise £113 million from local funding streams. As a counter to what the leader of the Opposition says, that is a requirement that was not agreed by any of the Executive parties, but imposed on them, and there would be a consequence were we not to meet it, because that financial package has delivered an additional £430 million for our public services.”
“I support the regional rates order, and I will support the related orders that are before the Assembly today. There will, no doubt, be Members who will, in the course of the debate, oppose any uplift to the regional rate. I encourage any Member who takes that stance to articulate how they would fund their proposed approach. As others have said, rates are the most significant lever available to the Executive to raise vital funding for health, education and other vital public services, and a crucial funding stream for local government, in particular. Our focus should be on balancing value for money for ratepayers and the pressures facing hard-pressed households and businesses with much-needed investment in our public services.”
“I thank the First Minister for that answer. First Minister, will you and the deputy First Minister commit to make representations to the Secretary of State so that it is not done in the name of us in the Assembly Chamber?”
“I want the Executive to be successful, because the success of our people, our communities and our public services depends on it, so I will be supporting the Programme for Government today.”
“I gently say this to him: when he comes to the Chamber to point the finger at other parties, at least be consistent. The SDLP sat on previous Executives where there was no Programme for Government at all. In fairness to the SDLP Ministers who sat on those Executives, I think that they tried their best to deliver. There were also Executives on which it sat where the SDLP voted against the Programme for Government yet continued to participate in the Executive. <BR /> <BR />As I said, this is not a Programme for Government that Alliance would have written. We are, however, willing to give it a fair wind, because if it is operated in good faith and in a spirit of collaboration, I believe that we can prove to be successful as an Executive.”
“<BR /> <BR />Of course, there are other areas where we would have liked to go further, be that in respect of exploiting the opportunities that are presented to us by dual market access, having a greater focus on poverty or, as the Chair of the Communities Committee referenced, the need to deliver on social strategies that are long overdue. For our part, Alliance will continue to articulate arguments in favour of progressing the disability strategy, the gender equality strategy, the LGBTQIA+ strategy and others. Our ability to deliver in this mandate has been constrained by the state of our public finances and by the fact that, again, we are operating in a constrained mandate. <BR /> <BR />I will refer to a couple of comments that the leader of the Opposition made.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is important to stress that, be it protecting our environment and improving water quality, building a vibrant economy or delivering the social housing to which the Programme for Government aspires, that requires progress in respect of infrastructure as a key enabling function. I want to associate myself with some of the remarks that the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee made in that regard. So, too, is it welcome to see clear targets in respect of the number of participants in programmes that raise awareness around the issue of violence against women and girls, given the particular scourge that that issue imposes on our society, as well as cross-party commitments to childcare and tackling health waiting lists.”
“I do not wish to dwell on those challenges, but I sincerely hope that those lessons will be learned and recognised and that we can commit today to moving forward together in a spirit of genuine collaboration and cooperation as we seek to deliver together. <BR /> <BR />There is much in the way of positive progress in this Programme for Government, including important commitments that will improve the lives of everyone whom we represent. There are commitments to tackle paramilitarism, speed up our justice system and enhance police officer numbers to build safer, stronger and more vibrant communities. For the first time, there are commitments to tackle the ecological crisis in Lough Neagh, ensuring that that issue receives the billing and the attention that it deserves, alongside action to protect our environment and combat climate change.”
“<BR /> <BR />On that note, before I turn to the substance of the document, I want to address some points in relation to the process and how we got here. The process, at times, was fraught with needless delay and lacked the spirit of genuine cooperation and collaboration that is referenced in the document itself. Four months after the consultation closed in November 2024, Alliance Ministers should not have had to ask for a summary of consultation responses and equality and rural impact assessments, nor should those Ministers have had to ask for the final version of the document on the eve of when the Executive were due to meet to agree it.”
“Like other Members, I welcome the Programme for Government as a step forward. For the first time since 2011, the Executive have agreed a Programme for Government that sets out the vision, priorities and direction for the remainder of the mandate. Of course, it goes without saying that the document is not an exhaustive list of everything that Executive Ministers will deliver over the next two years, nor should it be seen as the ceiling on our ambition, but rather it is the foundation from which we should all seek to build together. This is not a document that Alliance or, to be fair, any other party in the Chamber would have written in isolation. It does, however, set out a series of positive proposals in a number of areas where there is consensus amongst the four parties in the mandatory coalition.”
“I thank the Minister for that update, though I suspect that, given the end of his answer, he will not answer this next question: what is the rationale for excluding locum and sessional GPs from the proposed indemnity scheme? Is it not the case that, by excluding those GPs, those costs will be passed on to practices and will therefore undermine the stabilising effect of any scheme?”
“If we are to see the changes in our public services and public finances that we aspire to, we must reform how we approach those issues. <BR /> <BR />This Budget is the tenth single-year Budget in a row; next year will see the eleventh such Budget. After that, we will have an opportunity, finally, to return to multi-year budgeting. It is essential that that happen, that future Budgets be underpinned by a Programme for Government — this one is not — and that that stable Budget process be underpinned by stable political institutions so that, never again, can these processes be upended by political chaos and dysfunction. I will have much more to say on that in the debates on the Budget Bill that lie ahead.”
“<BR /> <BR />I will mention a number of points that have other Members have made. A number of Members have highlighted the fact that record levels of Barnett consequentials have flown through the process this year. Some Members have argued that we need to be more strategic about how we spend that money, but I argue that Barnett consequentials are the exact antithesis of strategic spending. It is far better that we have a clear indication through a multi-year spending review from Westminster of the money that will be available for investment. Indeed, many Barnett consequentials have arisen after 14 years of austerity and underinvestment. Those consequentials, far from allowing any ability for us to make meaningful long-term investment or, indeed, to prioritise transformation, have simply been swallowed up by in-year departmental pressures.”
“<BR /> <BR />If we are to make the case for increased investment, we also have to provide assurances that the public money that we are spending is being spent wisely. There are myriad examples, as we look back on 2024-25, of where that has not been the case, be it the £600 million spent on social care without any proper procurement process or value-for-money checks having been done, the £250,000 spent on magnetic wallets or the capital funding allocations about which there has been insufficient openness and transparency. I agree with Mr O'Toole, who made this point. The role of the Fiscal Council is critical to bringing additional scrutiny to the Budget processes before us, so it is essential that, as we look towards next year's Budget cycle, those provisions be placed on a statutory footing.”
“Any permanent fiscal framework must reflect the impact of political dysfunction and historical underfunding on our public services, but, in making that case to the UK Government, we cannot simply ignore our responsibilities as an Executive and an Assembly to drive transformation. <BR /> <BR />I am pleased that, this year, the Department of Justice has taken forward significant areas of work on speeding up justice and on access to justice reform. It must be said, however, that that same desire to deliver public service transformation has not been evident in some of our other large-spending Departments. The Department of Health's hospital reconfiguration plan lacked any concrete proposals for transformation. Similarly, the Department of Health has not demonstrated any desire to confront the cost of division.”
“When we debated the Main Estimates last year, there were calls from some in the Chamber for additional spend in a number of areas. It was notable, however, that Members were less forthcoming about identifying from where that additional investment would come. No one argues that the allocations throughout 2024-25 have been sufficient. The question for the Executive and the Assembly at every stage of the Budget cycle and during every monitoring round has not been whether the allocations are sufficient but rather whether they represent a fair attempt at distributing what are clearly insufficient resources. Alliance has consistently made the case, and will continue to make the case, to the UK Government for a fair funding settlement that properly reflects Northern Ireland's unique circumstances and relative need.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is no secret that the UK Government hold the bulk of the fiscal levers and therefore exert the greatest influence over the Budget ultimately available to the Executive. When the new UK Government came into office, they laid bare the failures of the previous Administration, rightly highlighting the £22 billion funding gap that they had inherited and departmental spending plans that never fully reflected the impact of inflation and, as a consequence, were at least £15 billion lower in real terms when compared with 2021 spending review levels. All that has had direct implications for our ability to spend and invest here.”
“Of course, in Northern Ireland, the pain has been compounded further by a funding formula that has not kept pace with need and by a cycle of stop-start government that has come at a cost through, in the past, depriving us of key opportunities to transform our broken public services. Since the Executive have returned, however, an additional £1·3 billion has been allocated to Health and Social Care when compared with the figure in the previous Budget from the Secretary of State in 2023-24. Some £45 million has been allocated to offset the worst of welfare reform, including the bedroom tax, while £17 million has been allocated to assist with mitigating Labour's decision to end the winter fuel payment. Meanwhile, the interim fiscal framework has generated an additional £431 million of investment for public services.”
“Prolonged austerity, the damage from Brexit and an increasing cost of living, with cumulative inflation pushing close to 19% in the past three years, have placed enormous pressure on household budgets and on the Executive's finances. In the face of those challenges, most parties in the Chamber — I emphasise "most" — have been working together constructively in a genuine attempt to support people and services where it matters most. <BR /> <BR />Those pressures have been felt right across the UK. In September, the Scottish Government announced £500 million in emergency saving measures in order to balance their Budget mid-year.”
“I support the Supply resolutions for the spring Supplementary Estimates, the Vote on Account and the Excess Vote. I intend to speak relatively briefly, as we will have an opportunity to rehearse many of these issues and themes again during the passage of the Budget Bill. <BR /> <BR />At the outset, I welcome the return to the semblance of some normality when it comes to the Budget process in the Assembly. Last year, we debated a Budget Bill in advance of the spring Supplementary Estimates, while, this year, we are able to return to the usual 45% figure in relation to the Vote on Account. <BR /> <BR />It goes without saying that the 2024-25 financial year has been yet another incredibly challenging one, with demands from Departments far outweighing the resources available at every stage of the process.”
“I am also of the view, however, that failing to intervene now and seeing otherwise viable and sustainable businesses go to the wall, because of the disadvantage that they are placed at in Northern Ireland and the worst-of-all-worlds scenario — I agree with Mr Brett on this — that they face, will be more costly to the Executive in lost rating income in the long term. Although there has been an understandable reluctance, given the constrained nature of our public finances, to look at a serious package of interim support whilst that strategic review cycle is ongoing, I urge the Economy Minister in her new role and the new Finance Minister to look at the issue again. If we do not act now, those businesses simply will not be there to avail themselves of support following the outcome of any review.”
“At the very least, we need to revisit the approach that Departments and the Executive are taking to the issue and look to establish interim support through the rating system for those in retail and hospitality. They are, understandably, looking at the significant business rates support that is available across the water, as Phillip Brett mentioned, where, in 2025-26, up to 40% of relief, up to a limit of £110,000, can be claimed by retail hospitality and leisure businesses. <BR /> <BR />As a Member of the Finance Committee, I am acutely aware of the constraints on public services and on the competing demands facing every single Minister.”
“<BR /> <BR />Whilst we often focus on the steps that the UK Government should take, there are also important steps that we, as an Assembly and an Executive, need to reflect on and that could be taken locally. The Economy Minister will be aware, given her previous role, of my view that the initiation of sectoral research into the cost of doing business is welcome and will assist in making the case to Treasury about the impact of its approach on businesses in Northern Ireland. I am less convinced that the strategic review cycle of our rating reliefs meets what is required in terms of urgency and independence. A 10-year review cycle, in which the Department of Finance will effectively mark its own homework, will hardly instil confidence among businesses that face a cliff edge today.”
“Proposals from the Irish Government to cut VAT for food-led hospitality to 9% could open a further and starker disparity, with, as has been mentioned, particular consequences for hospitality businesses in border counties, which will be put at a disadvantage compared with their counterparts in the South. There is an obvious case to be made on the need for closer harmonisation of VAT rates across these islands, given the particular challenges posed for businesses in Northern Ireland. However, with the Labour Government boxing themselves into a strategy that has resulted in sluggish economic growth and little headroom in public finances, I am not entirely confident that the Government would be in a position to make a move on the issue, even if they wanted to.”
“<BR /> <BR />When we discussed the matter on a previous occasion, we referenced the conglomeration of challenges facing hospitality businesses, including the scarring impact of the COVID-19 pandemic; Brexit-related labour shortages; concurrent cost-of-living and cost-of-doing-business crises; and the differential in VAT rates on the island, with the UK Government levying VAT at a rate of 20% on hospitality compared with the 13·5% rate in the Republic of Ireland. Regrettably, nine months on, the situation has got worse rather than better, despite our previous debate. The UK Government's planned changes to employers' National Insurance contributions will expand the cost base for hospitality businesses in Northern Ireland.”
“Like other Members, I welcome the opportunity to return to this important issue following the debate on 13 May last year. As the motion sets out, hospitality plays a key role in the success of Northern Ireland's tourism industry, with food and drink accounting for a significant portion of visitor spend. With 70% of tourism-related jobs situated outside Belfast, hospitality plays a key role in building a more vibrant, dynamic and regionally balanced economy. It also means that so many of those businesses are the heart and fabric of communities, particularly in rural areas.”
“Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. <BR /> <BR />The SR is the least that we can do. I appeal to all parties to reflect on their supposed environmental credentials, step up and take the action that is necessary. It is not the ceiling of our ambition, but it is a starting point. When we make promises to our electorate, we ought to honour them in the Chamber.”
“With respect, Principal Deputy Speaker, I will speak to the prayer of annulment, but it is about regulations that pertain to water quality and agricultural standards, and those issues are relevant.”
“— in aligning themselves with the Poots penalties.”
“<BR /> <BR />What we have heard today is absolutely outrageous, but I pay tribute to the farmers who comply with regulations, because the vast majority of them are good custodians of our environment. It is a shame that Members seem to be more on the side of polluters and those who breach the rules than those farmers who comply with regulations day in, day out, as they go about their work. I ask Members to reflect on the promises that they made to their constituents and on their public pronouncements about the need for action to tackle water quality issues in Lough Neagh and to put their money where their mouths are by stepping up, acting and supporting a Minister who, for once, can be trusted to protect our environment, rather than doing what the SDLP and Sinn Féin have done today —”
“No, I will not. Mr McGlone always talks about the need to see legislation being debated on the Floor of the Assembly, but, when it comes, his party prays against it. Non-binding motions in Belfast City Council are one thing, but it is this Chamber that makes legislation. We need to hear some consistency from parties in their approach to these issues. <BR /> <BR />Mr Butler raised a very important example of a one-off breach that resulted in a cross-compliance penalty. That case would be unaffected by the provisions in the SR. It is about repeated negligent breaches. It also does not follow that every breach will carry a severe fine, but the SR gives the Department the ability to look at the severity of the breach and apply a fine appropriately.”
“The Opposition often talk about the fact that they want to see —”
“No, we have heard enough from the Member. Thank you, but I want to respond to some of the points that were raised. <BR /> <BR />What we have heard today is shameful. The hypocrisy and inertia on the issues affecting our environment are eroding trust in these institutions. Just over a year ago, party leaders were out on boats, talking about the ecological crisis and its impact on water quality. They complained about their constituents having to drink mouldy water, yet today, when we have an opportunity to do the bare minimum through legislation, their parties fall at the first hurdle. <BR /> <BR />I agree with Mr McGlone that cross-compliance penalties alone will not solve the crisis in Lough Neagh. He is right, but they are a starting point whilst we do a wider review of fines and penalties.”
“In an uncharacteristic gesture, I give some credit to the DUP for consistency, because the DUP has been honest about its environmental credentials. It opposed the Climate Change Act, and it consistently stands up against environmental and climate action. However, what we have heard from other parties in the Chamber today has been a lesson in rank hypocrisy. We need not have been surprised by that. The Ulster Unionist Party, despite talking about the environment, joined the DUP in railing against the Climate Change Act; Sinn Féin was the architect of the Going for Growth strategy, which walked us to the position that we are in with Lough Neagh; and the SDLP delivered sand dredging in the bed of Lough Neagh.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. She has highlighted the important role of Committees and their work on regulations, and I agree with her. Does she therefore agree that it was shameful that the previous Minister introduced a cap and made secondary legislation when the Assembly was down and there was no Committee in place to scrutinise that?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He has read into the record a touching example of the challenges that many farming families face, and I would never diminish that. There are farming families who work incredibly hard under real pressure. However, will he acknowledge that he cited a 5% subsidy? By voting against the regulations, he would be offering protection not to the families in that circumstance but to those who engage in more severe, repeated breaches.”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. During the Education Minister's answers to questions, he repeatedly referred to a £1 million limit for capital maintenance. That conflicts with the information on his Department's website. Would it be in order for the Minister to account for the inaccuracy on the website or clarify the remarks that he made in the Assembly?”
“Minister, it has been a typically arrogant and evasive question-and-answer session from a Minister whose credibility is once again under fire. I will ask the Minister this question again, and I would like a yes or no answer, please: did you or your officials, at any stage before or after your meeting with the principal of Lisneal College, discuss the application with the EA or its board representatives?”
“The question is how we ensure that further work is done whereby information can be more appropriately shared between legislatures. We must also recommit to progressing all of the recommendations in the review, including the updating of employment contracts, record-keeping and the revision of job descriptions. <BR /> <BR />This whole sorry affair has wrecked public confidence not just in the Members concerned but in all Members and in these institutions. We all ought to reflect on that and commit ourselves now to repairing the damage and progressing the recommendations.”
“Indeed, we must also recognise that the Assembly Commission's powers are limited. This is not a police inquiry or a judicial inquiry but an inquiry conducted within the limited powers that the Assembly Commission has. It is important that we recognise that. Mr Gaston said that the powers that be want this to be the last word, and I note that he is always keen to find conspiracy. The report has been passed on to the PSNI, the Northern Ireland Audit Office and the Department of Finance, which will have their own respective roles on the issue. <BR /> <BR />The motion calls for regular audits of how money is spent under the determination, and, of course, all of us in the Chamber ought to support that. However, that already happens, as Diane Dodds helpfully outlined.”
“No competent employer could fail to notice an employee working two full-time jobs and a part-time job simultaneously, not least when all three of those positions relate to one political party and the Member in question is part of its leadership team. That stretches credibility to its elastic limit. The information provided to the review also seemingly contradicts statements that were made by the First Minister at Question Time on 7 October. <BR /> <BR />The motion points to a number of limitations pertaining to the review, and it is fair to say that there are limitations. However, it is possible to comment on the conclusion of the review and its limitations without unfairly impugning the integrity and impartiality of the Assembly officials who conducted it in incredibly trying and difficult circumstances.”
“I intend to be relatively brief, given that many of the issues that we are discussing today are matters of public record and have been discussed many times, including the contents of the review report. It is, however, important to say that issues pertaining to the use of public money must be treated with the utmost seriousness, propriety and transparency. The review of certain allowances under the 2016 determination raises matters of serious concern. It highlights the bizarre situation in which, for three months, Michael McMonagle was employed full-time by both Michelle O'Neill and the Sinn Féin MP Órfhlaith Begley for 75 hours, in addition to working an additional eight to 11 hours for the party.”
“Minister, you referred to NI Water and the fact that waste water infrastructure contributes to the blue-green algae that we see on Lough Neagh. Do you share the Minister for Infrastructure's assessment that the funding model for NI Water is sustainable and fit for purpose?”
“It is difficult to fathom how Mr Tierney can remain an elected representative. He and his party ought to be considering his position. I gently ask the leader of the Opposition and the leader of the SDLP to reflect, to be consistent based on the demands that they have made of other parties and to take the appropriate action in the interest of the victims concerned.”