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 2 of 18.
“Decades of stop-start government, which has deprived the Executive of key opportunities to transform public services, combined with over 14 years of austerity, have left the Executive in that position. We are often told that there is an issue of credibility when it comes to the Executive's relationship with Treasury, but let us be clear: credibility cuts both ways. A bit like Pavlov's dog, politicians here have been conditioned to believe that they have to elevate financial or political issues to a crisis in order to get engagement and response from Treasury, which will get its cash book out to patch things up temporarily. That is what happened in 2023, when there was a short-term cash injection.”
“Significant reform and transformation has happened in that time, but there comes a point where you are no longer trimming fat and all that is left is muscle and bone in the system. We have reached that point. I acknowledge that significant progress was made in the previous Budget — we were able to start recruitment to the PSNI again, and money was made available for the data breach — but all of that good work would be undone in one fell swoop by the proposals on the table. <BR /> <BR />There has been a lot of debate in recent weeks about whether blame for the current crisis rests with Stormont or Westminster: the truth is that it rests with both.”
“<BR /> <BR />The current proposals create serious difficulty for every Department in meeting statutory requirements, but the most extreme example is the situation facing the Department of Justice. As the Chair of the Committee has just reflected, at the end of the three-year Budget cycle, the shortfall facing the Department would be over £210 million, which is equivalent to the budgets of the Prison Service, the Probation Board, the Youth Justice Agency and Forensic Science combined. That is not a workable or credible proposal. No amount of prioritisation or transformation in a Department would lead to that scale of savings. Since the devolution of policing and justice, the Department's budget has been squeezed from 11% of the block grant to just 8%.”
“Like others, I welcome the opportunity to reflect on the Finance Committee's report on the draft Budget, although it is incredibly disappointing, as others have reflected, that we do so in the absence of agreement on a Budget more than a month into the new financial year. That delay is creating uncertainty and operational risk across all Departments and all public services as well as for our constituents, who rely on those services. It is not as simple as saying that the Budget should just be agreed as it stands; we must be clear that that would mean cuts to public services of upwards of £700 million in the first year. I do not think that any of us in the Chamber would wish to advocate or stand over such an untenable and unsustainable position.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He says that he will support amendment No 5, but he did not reference amendment No 4 in his remarks. Ostensibly, amendment Nos 4 and 5 are trying to achieve the same thing. The proposer of amendment No 5 and I have been pretty magnanimous in supporting the other's position. Will the Member explain what he believes to be the difference between the two? Given that they are ostensibly trying to achieve the same thing, why will he not also support amendment No 4?”
“If Members are serious not just about scrutiny but about building a reconciled and integrated community, and if they are serious about funding our public services and not segregation, I ask them to support the cost of division amendments that are before us today.”
“Once we reached agreement with the Treasury in 2024, we saw that there would inevitably be new challenges over the horizon. The opportunity has not been grasped to have a serious conversation about where money could be saved through tackling division in our community and reducing duplication in our public services. If the Member's argument is that Departments and arm's-length bodies should do that, why not place that scrutiny and transparency on a statutory footing so that the financial watchdog can ensure that Departments follow through with those commitments? <BR /> <BR />I absolutely commend the Bill's Consideration Stage, and I commend the amendments that have been tabled.”
“Again, that gives the Fiscal Council permission to go into that space, while not requiring it to do so on every occasion, ensuring that we protect its independence and giving it the flexibility to draw its own conclusions. I am happy to support amendment No 3. Likewise, if my amendment No 4 falls, I will be happy to support amendment No 5. <BR /> <BR />In relation to my amendment No 4, I recognise that the Fiscal Council is not the be-all and end-all when it comes to the cost of division. Diane Forsythe said that there is a job of work for Departments and arm's-length bodies to do, and I agree with that. For quite some time now, I have been calling for the Finance Minister and the UK Government to lead an independent assessment of the cost of duplication and division in our public services. A lot of us saw the cliff edge coming.”
“My view was and is that forecasting is not necessary for the Fiscal Council and that we do not have a huge range of tax-raising powers devolved to the Assembly at this point, though it may be an issue that we would want to look at in the future. I acknowledge, however, that Mr O'Toole has revised that proposal significantly and, amendment No 3, which is my preference, simply says that the Fiscal Council's conclusions in its sustainability reports:”
“If you look at the Executive's capital profile, you see that there is a specific issue where, effectively, the delays in delivering infrastructure projects and the lack of an investment strategy mean that capital priorities often reflect the priorities of Executives gone by, rather than those of current Ministers. I believe that amendment No 1 is not overly onerous, nor is it in any way political, because the Executive are setting their priorities, but it would give the public and Assembly Members greater insight as to whether funding is following through on what has been agreed in the Programme for Government. <BR /> <BR />Turning to amendment Nos 2 and 3, I was fairly hesitant when the issue was first raised by Mr O'Toole in the Finance Committee. At that stage, we were having a discussion about the potential for economic forecasting.”
“If the Assembly legislates to give the Fiscal Council permission to look at those issues, that will protect its independence when it presents its findings to the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />I want to look at the leader of the Opposition's amendments in turn. Amendment No 1 deals with enabling the Fiscal Council to report on, effectively, how the profile of spend reflects commitments made in the Programme for Government. I certainly have no difficulty, representing a party that is in the Executive, with that ambition. If a Programme for Government is to mean anything, we should be able to evidence that those priorities have been followed through in Budget allocations.”
“It may well report that there are some direct costs to certain Departments because we are a divided society. There may, then, be a political choice by Assembly Members to sustain those because they feel that that is the best way forward. That is a political judgement, but none of us should be afraid of being confronted with the available evidence. <BR /> <BR />More than that, I think that, by putting that in legislation, we are insulating the Fiscal Council from allegations of acting politically, and we are empowering it to use its discretion to look at the issues. In every debate in which I have participated, the DUP and Sinn Féin have been entirely reluctant to discuss or confront the very real costs of division that exist in our society.”
“I accept that the Bill has been developed in line with OECD principles, and it is right that the Bill reflects international best practice, but so too must it stand up against the lived reality of our communities and our public services locally and respond to our local needs. <BR /> <BR />We have heard that, by being specific about wanting the Fiscal Council to look at those issues, we are interfering with its ability to be independent. I do not accept that. How far does that argument travel? If we are to place any parameters in the Bill on what the Fiscal Council should look at, does that impinge on its independence? We are not saying that the Fiscal Council should come with policy recommendations about how to deal with the cost of division.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 4 and 5 seek to increase the transparency of and focus on the cost of division by asking the Fiscal Council to consider those costs as part of its thematic financial sustainability reports. Contrary to what some other contributors have said, this is not about forcing a particular policy outcome, nor is it about encroaching on the independence of the Fiscal Council, as others have claimed: far from it. It is about equipping ourselves with the facts and acknowledging that the cost of division is a reality; not some abstract concept but rather a real burden on our society.”
“Tackling that cost, from my perspective, is not only about driving down the financial costs associated with division but about looking at the real benefits that exist for our society. According to research from Pivotal, there is an overlay, if you like, between levels of division in our society and levels of deprivation. There should be a real imperative on all of us to look at how we can better integrate communities. There is also the social benefit of children and young people growing up in communities where they are mixing, playing, working and socialising with people from different community backgrounds. That will be crucial if we are to build the more integrated, shared and reconciled community to which, I believe, the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland aspire.”
“Those amendments seek to go some way towards grappling with one such structural challenge: the cost associated with running duplicated public services in a divided society. <BR /> <BR />The cost of division has been spoken about repeatedly in the Chamber over the years. It has been estimated, debated and, at times, acknowledged, but, most of the time, it is avoided. Previous estimates have suggested that the cost of division could be up to £833 million every single year owing to duplication in education, leisure and community provision; segregation in housing; and the additional costs associated with policing a divided society. Allow me to be the very first to acknowledge that not all those costs are direct costs to the Executive or entirely avoidable, but we know that that duplication exists and that it is a reality.”
“<BR /> <BR />If ever there were a time when those qualities of transparency and scrutiny were needed, it is now, as the Executive look into yet another budgetary crisis, with shortfalls affecting every Department, service and family across Northern Ireland. Our constituents see that pressure in their schools and hospitals, in crumbling roads and in long housing waiting lists. Those pressures have not developed overnight. We have a duty not only to stabilise our finances but to respond with honesty about the structural challenges that lock Stormont into a cycle of overspending and short-term fixes. That is precisely what amendment No 4 in my name and amendment No 5 in Matthew O'Toole's name seek to address.”
“I, like others, welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Consideration Stage of the Fiscal Council Bill. I welcome the progress that has been made on the Bill to date and the steps that have been taken towards placing the Fiscal Council on a statutory and permanent footing, following the New Decade, New Approach agreement. <BR /> <BR />The Fiscal Council was created to bring independent scrutiny, transparency and long-term thinking to our public finances. Since 2021, it has been doing that. Its detailed Budget assessments and work on Northern Ireland's funding formula and issues such as the sustainability and viability of NI Water have been indispensable to all of us as elected representatives and brought greater transparency for the media and the public about how exactly the Executive spend their money.”
“I find it remarkable, Minister, that, when questions are asked about perceived conflicts of interest, you reach for the sectarianism card. I find that quite remarkable. <BR /> <BR />What potential conflicts were identified and what steps did you take to manage them? Did you consider recusing yourself from the process? Did you ask the selection panel for a merit-ordered list?”
“<BR /> <BR />Therefore, I ask Members to acknowledge that the initial response to this crisis fell far short of what is required and that greater leadership was required sooner to instil confidence among the public in Stormont and the Executive's ability to deliver, but they should also acknowledge that, in the absence of any action from the UK Government and in very difficult circumstances, parties have stepped up and put in place a vital support scheme for people. That is to be welcomed. I hope that all parties can coalesce around the amendment, which, as I say, recognises the shortcomings but is not shy in recognising where progress has been made.”
“It is because of that woke renewable nonsense", but we all know that the only way to cut bills, protect our environment and meet our climate commitments is by accelerating our transition to renewable energy so that our constituents are no longer susceptible to the roller coaster of fossil fuel prices and are no longer at the behest of global dictators when it comes to setting the price of their energy bills.”
“The Members should cease their chuntering so that I can continue. This is not just about today's crisis; it is about how we make progress to insulate families from future shocks. It is about looking beyond our own narrow borders towards the EU to look at how, in a customs union and with closer alignment with the single market, the UK will have a stronger economy that will strengthen the UK Government's hands to support people through this crisis. It is about rejecting the culture war nonsense that we have heard in the Chamber. Members have risen to their feet and said, "Oh, the rising energy bills are nothing to do with Trump's illegal war.”
“Well, how the leader of the Opposition's tune has changed, and I would welcome his party speaking with one united voice, along with every other party in the Chamber, for the kind of intervention from the Labour Government that the people whom we represent deserve. <BR /> <BR />This is not just about —”
“It would be a sad indictment if Hilary Benn, Rachel Reeves and Keir Starmer presided over underfunding of our public services that even the Tories conceded was unacceptable and should not continue. <BR /> <BR />That is where I must diverge from the leader of the Opposition, because I think that it is right that parties take responsibility. In 2024, the leader of the Opposition's party stood on a manifesto that told the people of Northern Ireland that SDLP MPs are best placed to deliver change because they will have the strongest relationship with a new Labour Government. That party also said to voters in its manifesto, "Just imagine what we could do with a Labour Government who understand this place and listen to our MPs".”
“<BR /> <BR />We also cannot divorce this conversation from the conversation about fair funding for public services in Northern Ireland. I am sick, sore and tired of my constituents, who pay their National Insurance and tax and who, according to the Nevin Economic Research Institute (NERI), pay a greater proportion of tax than people in other parts of the UK for the quality of services that they get, being told that their representatives are simply going to London with a begging bowl when we know that Scotland and Wales receive considerably more funding, way above their level of need, than we do in this part of the UK. That inequality was acknowledged by the Tory Government and needs to be rectified by the Labour Government.”
“It is important to stress that the Executive do not have unlimited financial or fiscal power and that the UK Government should and could step up to deliver a cut in fuel duty, make changes to VAT, support people with their energy bills and extend the windfall taxes on big oil and gas companies, which are gouging and profiting off the backs of our struggling constituents. It is not only big oil and gas companies that are having a time of it at the moment. The Treasury is experiencing a windfall from increased tax revenues, and that cannot be forgotten. Whilst the UK Government and Keir Starmer are weak and distracted by their disgraceful handling of the Peter Mandelson affair, our constituents are being left to suffer and are struggling.”
“It is significant and welcome that, even in the absence of action from the UK Government and even with the financial constraints that the Executive face, agreement was found on a scheme that will support 340,000 households that earn less than £30,000 and rely on home heating oil.”
“I watched quite a lot of Members from both parties pointing fingers across the Chamber last week in the absence of any clarity on a scheme, so I stand over my assertion. We still have no clarity on how £81 million in annually managed expenditure (AME) money will be distributed to support people with their energy bills. The response from the Department for Communities and the Department for the Economy has been far too slow. <BR /> <BR />The amendment seeks to acknowledge that, since the SDLP motion was laid, important progress has been made. I recognise the statement that was issued belatedly by the First Minister and deputy First Minister last week and the progress that was made belatedly by the Communities Minister in designing a scheme and bringing it to the Executive to seek agreement.”
“<BR /> <BR />We had the bizarre spectacle of the Communities Minister, whilst in Washington DC clinking glasses with Donald Trump and his cronies, blaming the Sinn Féin Economy Minister for not delivering the scheme on home heating oil and then later back-pedalling and accepting that it was the responsibility of his Department. The response has been confused and slow and has done little to bestow any confidence in the public about the DUP and Sinn Féin's ability to deliver in times of crisis.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. There is no doubt that households, businesses, farmers, hauliers, domiciliary care workers and many others in our society are working themselves to the bone and are under enormous pressure as a direct consequence of Donald Trump's illegal war in Iran — a war that was foolishly cheerled by many Members. I agree with the leader of the Opposition that the response from the top of the Executive at the outbreak of that crisis was confused, slow and beset by bickering, point-scoring, blame shifting and obfuscation. There was a complete absence of the leadership that workers, families and businesses needed and demanded.”
“If, in the next mandate, the Minister therefore has any plans to make independent celebrants more accessible to people so that they do not have to visit the registry office before having a ceremony that reflects their values, that would be a really welcome development. Like the leader of the Opposition, if no-fault divorce is not to be part of the Bill, I am keen to hear when we are likely to see progress made in that space. <BR /> <BR />I absolutely welcome the Bill. It is an important step forward, and I look forward to supporting it during its remaining legislative stages.”
“Couples can come at life with different religious views or perspectives. Some wish to have ceremonies that incorporate non-religious and religious elements, and they find that independent celebrants are often the only route that they can take to allow them to get married in accordance with their own values, including a ceremony in which the views of both partners in the relationship will be respected.”
“We believe in an open, respectful, plural and inclusive society where the state does not privilege any one group over another. <BR /> <BR />I also support the Minister's approach to registration and eligibility. It is a delicate balance, but the more pragmatic approach that the Minister has taken to dealing with it and the flexibility to deal with it through regulation are welcome. <BR /> <BR />On the challenges facing independent celebrants, I am keen to hear from the Minister in his winding-up speech whether the ongoing review in England and Wales has informed his thinking and whether he has any plans to come back to that issue in future mandates. From the contact that I have had with independent celebrants, I am conscious of the fact that some couples do not fit neatly into the belief marriage or the religious marriage space.”
“I am also supportive of the steps that the Minister is taking to criminalise those who would arrange child marriages. <BR /> <BR />The second element of the Bill relates to placing belief marriage on the same legal and permanent basis as religious marriage. That is a long-overdue and important step forward for equality. It is regrettable, as the leader of the Opposition mentioned, that progress in that space had to be secured initially through the courts rather than the Assembly. Today, however, there is an opportunity to remedy that position and to legislate for the outworkings of the 2017 case. This is not about elevating one world view over another. It is about treating people of religious belief and non-religious belief equally in law. For the Alliance Party, that is a no-brainer.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is also significant that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has described child marriage as a "form of gender-based discrimination" and violence, because evidence suggests, first, that it is more common that it is young women who are being married under the age of 18, and, secondly, that those young people are subject to unequal power dynamics, more susceptible and vulnerable to domestic abuse and more likely to become economically dependent as they are much more likely to leave school early and, as a result, miss out on a raft of economic and career opportunities. Significant evidence also exists to suggest that people who are married in childhood are more likely to experience mental health challenges throughout their lives. Therefore, I support the steps that are being taken to raise the minimum age.”
“It is a step that is overdue and that will, undoubtedly, strengthen protections for children and young people against forced marriage and pressured marriage, in particular, as well as bring us into line with the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child's recommendations and our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. There are multiple reasons for raising the age. We know that, before the age of 18, younger people are much more vulnerable to coercion from family members, peers or their partners. Given that marriage is a lifelong commitment, it is right that we raise the age to 18, in line with the generally accepted age of adulthood, to ensure that young people are making a fully informed and independent choice.”
“On behalf of the Alliance Party, I support the Second Stage of the Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill. I look forward to supporting the Bill through its legislative stages over the remainder of the mandate. The Bill has been a long time coming, given that it was first consulted on in 2021 and 2022, albeit an abeyance of the Assembly delayed proceedings. I place on record my thanks to officials in the Department who have been working throughout the period. It is a small but mighty team with lots of work streams, and it has put in an incredible shift to get the Bill to this stage. <BR /> <BR />It is overwhelmingly clear from the consultation responses that there is widespread public support for raising the minimum age of marriage to 18.”
“Will the Minister elaborate on the Substance Misuse Court referral process and how it works?”
“Does the Member agree that confidence is really important if we are to make any progress on the wider SEN reform and the agenda that the Minister says he wants to prioritise?”
“We need guarantees, not a vague assurance, that the mistake will never be repeated, and we need a clear cross-departmental commitment and a plan to ensure that nursing provision, staffing and SEN support are stable, sustainable and protected. That is the least that families should be able to expect from two Departments that, collectively, receive over 71% of the Executive's Budget. SEN children and their families deserve consistent, meaningful support, not chaos, not confusion and not, frankly, the incompetence that we have witnessed over the past week. No child in our society should ever be an afterthought. They deserve Ministers who get it right the first time. <BR /> <BR />I commend the motion to the Assembly.”
“They do not want more buck-passing, more blame and more political point-scoring in the Chamber; they demand full transparency about the decision-making process around those schemes. <BR /> <BR />The Assembly has been recalled to give voice to the frustrations felt by parents, schools and the wider public, who are horrified by how the ordeal has been handled. We must send a clear message today that the rights of children with additional needs are not optional or secondary, that such support cannot be switched on and off by Departments as and when it suits and that those children's families should never again be used as pawns in a game of political chicken between two Ministers.”
“What will the provision look like this year for those families? Will the nursing cover be sufficient? Will the Ministers ensure that there will be no repeat of this saga in future years? What steps will now be taken to address the issues in nursing provision that have been occurring for years, and how can the confidence of parents in Ministers' ability to deliver wider reform to the SEN system be rebuilt, given the shambolic way in which this situation has been handled? <BR /> <BR />Parents deserve answers to those questions. They deserve accountability and a fulsome apology in the Assembly today from both Ministers. Anything less, including resorting to the usual bluster, deflection and political attacks to which we are so accustomed in the Chamber, will speak volumes to the families who are in the Public Gallery today.”
“The issue is a microcosm of a system that is failing children with special educational needs and their families in our society. <BR /> <BR />Yes, the U-turn is welcome, and, yes, families are relieved that the schemes will now go ahead, but that relief does not erase the harm. It does not ease the anxiety or replenish the confidence that has been so heavily diminished. It also does not answer the fundamental questions. Who made the decision? Why was cancellation of those vital schemes on the table in the first place? When were the Ministers aware? Why did they sit on their hands? Why did they not intervene earlier? Why were the Education Committee and the Assembly not notified? Why, on Thursday, was it not possible for schemes to proceed safely but, suddenly, on Friday, it was entirely possible to make them safe?”
“Lofty promises and commitments were made about reviews and action, but, clearly, nothing has changed. <BR /> <BR />Parents of children with special educational needs are at breaking point. They are forced to fight every day for every scrap of support that they need throughout their child's life, from diagnosis to securing school places, accessing respite and planning a post-19 future for their child. Every delay, barrier and blockage places more strain on families who are already stretched beyond their elastic limit. The latest debacle is not merely an administrative failure or an operational decision, as the Minister claimed. It is yet another blow to families who are exhausted from battling the system at every turn and whose children always seem to be the first to lose support and the last to find out.”
“The fact that it did and that a resolution was then magically found within 24 hours exposed just how shambolic and blasé the approach to those vital schemes has been. <BR /> <BR />The issue of nursing provision in special schools is not new. The concerns about the delegated scheme are well known. It is also not simply the preserve of summer schemes. The Departments, by the Minister's own admission, had been engaging on those issues for months. Officials, schools and families have all been raising concerns repeatedly for years. Met with a brick wall, my colleague Nick Mathison, as Chair of the Education Committee, stepped in to facilitate a meeting between principals and the health trusts back in 2024. He facilitated a further meeting with the two Ministers later that year.”
“It left families abandoned, scrambling for alternatives that simply do not exist, and school leaders were left in the dark. To make matters worse, the announcement slipped out just as the Assembly entered recess: a clear attempt to avoid scrutiny or accountability in the Chamber, knowing full well the chaos that would ensue for families. What happened next was that Ministers hid behind officialdom, passing the buck and pointing the finger at one another whilst parents cried out for real leadership and action. <BR /> <BR />It is, of course, a relief that common sense has since prevailed, but it should never have taken the backlash from concerned parents or a recall petition from Alliance to drag Ministers back around the table.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Over the past week, families of children with special educational needs have been put through a disgraceful and entirely avoidable ordeal. The decision to cancel summer schemes at special schools, only for it to be reversed fewer than 24 hours later, has caused widespread distress, anger and confusion, and rightly so. Those schemes are not optional extras; they are a lifeline for families, providing structure, routine, support and social interaction for children with additional needs and disabilities and offering much-needed respite for their parents during the nine-week summer break. <BR /> <BR />To pull the rug from under those schemes at the last minute, without warning, consultation or a contingency plan, was an appalling dereliction of duty by the Minister of Health and the Minister of Education.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. Will she agree that that appeal is critical to ensuring that the A5, in particular, can proceed? There seemed to be some criticism from the Opposition of the idea that that would be taken, but I commend her efforts in taking it.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Does she appreciate that there is climate change legislation in other parts of the UK, including Wales, for example, and that major road safety projects there have been able to proceed in tandem with trying to achieve those targets? Does she also agree that the carbon impact of the A1 and the impact on traffic is not comparable at all to that of, for example, the A5?”
“I accept that proceeding ahead of the A5 appeal carries some risk, but so, too, does the delay to the project. That risk is much greater. Delay means higher costs, more uncertainty and more lives put at risk through inaction. <BR /> <BR />This evening, I appeal to you directly, Minister, to use the authority of your office to proceed urgently with that vital safety project, even if that means proceeding at risk. Campaigners have played their part, as have bereaved families. Local residents have been unwavering in their demand for progress. The evidence is clear, the need is urgent, and the cost of inaction is far too high. We must treat the issue as the priority that it is, honour the courage of those who have campaigned, and, above all, ensure that no more families face the heartbreak that has been far too common in years gone by.”