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 6 of 18.
“First, I want to bring the debate back to those who should be at the heart of our considerations of the report, and that is the front-line workers who served across our public services, those who were not able to hold their loved one's hand in their final moments and all those in our society who had their lives and livelihoods upended by the coronavirus pandemic. <BR /> <BR />It is shameful that Baroness Hallett has found that, even when our people and public services were on their knees and even in the context of a global emergency, the DUP and Sinn Féin could not set aside their party political interests to prioritise the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland.”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. I welcome compressing the timetable from 10 years to two years and the intent to support small businesses and tackle vacant property. Minister, will the changes that you are proposing for supporting small businesses be possible without raising money elsewhere in the rating system? Why have we not seen the changes to the early payment discount or maximum capital value emerge from the Executive?”
“<BR /> <BR />We have set out our proposals and clear asks for how the framework could be improved in order to ease the burden on businesses, including the provision of enhanced support and advice, the promotion of dual market access and the relaxation of the at-risk category. Only a full reversal of Brexit, however, can undo all the tensions and contradictions that the framework poses. <BR /> <BR />We have a choice about how we present Northern Ireland to the world. Will we continue to pick at old wounds and create uncertainty and instability or embrace the opportunities of dual market access and send a signal that we are open for business and are serious about doing business? I hope that Members choose the second option.”
“To be blunt, the framework is also the only game in town. The Government have made that clear. My hope is that, over time, as issues arise, the framework can change, evolve and become less bureaucratic. The Lords Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee's report and Lord Murphy's review can inform that process, but the framework itself is going nowhere. It will be the starting point. <BR /> <BR />Alliance supports the framework not because it is seamless or perfect but because it is the better option when faced with a choice between a hard border and a soft border, a choice between friction and facilitation and between stability and chaos. The Members who have railed loudest against the framework, including in today's debate, have provided no credible alternative over the past eight years.”
“No, I will not, because we heard enough from the Member in his opening contribution. <BR /> <BR />Alliance called for a veterinary agreement during the Brexit process, but Arlene Foster and the DUP dismissed our call. I am grateful that the DUP has undertaken probably the longest U-turn in history and got to a better position, but had it listened to those of us who warned of such issues at the time, our businesses would now be in a better place. <BR /> <BR />The Windsor framework is far from perfect, but it is a function of Brexit. It is intended to insulate us from its worst excesses. It has contributed to a situation in which Northern Ireland's economy has outperformed that of the rest of the UK. In 2024, economic output in Northern Ireland grew at a rate of 3·6%, compared with just 1·4% in the UK as a whole.”
“<BR /> <BR />M&S has been mentioned in the motion, so I will say that supermarkets have a choice either to go through the red lane or to use the retail movement scheme, which is also known as the "green lane". The reason that some supermarkets cannot avail themselves of that scheme is that they supply Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. M&S relies on being able to supply the Republic of Ireland through ports, including Belfast, and, because its loads are mixed, the system is bureaucratic and complicated. That is true. From my perspective, the way to address that is through a comprehensive veterinary agreement, for which the Alliance Party campaigned and to which the Government have committed. I hope that the Government will move forward at pace with that agreement. That will require building trust —.”
“Of course, logic was a concept that the DUP never applied during the Brexit process; indeed, the DUP dismissed such concerns, telling those of us who warned of red tape and food supply chain issues that we could, "Go to the chippy". Its former leader said that he could live with 40,000 job losses as the cost of Brexit freedom. The DUP was out of touch then, and it is just as out of touch today. The motion spells out the gulf between those on the DUP Benches who are lamenting the price of food in Marks and Spencer (M&S) and those whom we represent who rely on food banks and expect us to be in the Chamber debating the cost of living and how we tackle poverty in our society.”
“Alliance warned that there was no such thing as a good or sensible Brexit and that leaving the EU would inevitably mean increased borders, barriers and friction. The only question was about where that friction would occur, not whether it would occur. We said clearly that that was much more likely to happen at ports and airports than at a porous 300-mile land border, not because we wanted to see those checks happen there but because logic necessitated that that is where they would happen.”
“I, too, have a sense of déjà vu coming to the Chamber once again to rehearse the damage of Brexit. It was interesting that Mr Brett said that that was not his intention, because that is what he proceeded to do. He was keen to use not his own words but the words of businesses. I say gently to the Member that, if only he had listened to the voices of the FSB and other business organisations during the referendum, we may not have found ourselves in this position, for the consequences that he listed were entirely predictable and inevitable. <BR /> <BR />It has been fascinating to watch as those who tabled the motion have slowly come to terms with the consequences of their actions, as they seek to rewrite history and blame everybody else for the Brexit that they campaigned for. You won, guys: own it.”
“On the basis of what he said, does the Minister agree that we have the DUP campaigning for a border in the Irish Sea when it comes to environmental governance?”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The matter in the Order Paper relates to the independent environmental protection agency. I am not sure what relevance the Ashers case and the Equality Commission have to the debate, other than the Member's wish to engage in a homophobic dog whistle. I do not believe that she would have raised that case were it not for the sexuality of the Minister who is sitting beside me. I ask for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker, as to whether that is relevant to the debate, and I ask the Member to withdraw her comment and to apologise, because it is disgraceful.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. The Member criticised the amendment to the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill because it did not define functions. Does that not underline the need for the review that the Minister commissioned upon taking office, the recent report on which sets out what the agency's functions ought to be in order to inform the next steps towards setting it up?”
“I am not sure, Minister, whether you heard the Education Minister's response to the earlier question. He blamed a lack of in-year Barnett consequentials for the challenges in his Department. He was also critical of you and other Executive colleagues for refusing to make savings and efficiencies on his behalf. How predictable was that lack of Barnett consequentials this year? What is your response to the Education Minister's criticism?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The item in the Order Paper is a motion of no confidence in the Minister of Education. I ask for your ruling on whether anything that we have heard from Mr Buckley deals with that issue.”
“Throughout the history of the Alliance Party, the DUP has attacked us and impugned our integrity and our motives, so that certainly has not changed. We have been consistent, unlike her party, in standing up to paramilitarism, wherever it comes from, and standing up for the rule of law. <BR /> <BR />Let it be beyond doubt: the comments of the proposer of the motion, Gerry Carroll, on 7 October were abhorrent and repulsive, and Alliance condemned those comments clearly at the time. Indeed, if Gerry Carroll held ministerial office, we would be in the Chamber supporting a motion of no confidence in him as a result of his conduct.”
“He could, at any point, have recognised and apologised for the hurt caused, committed to an independent review of his and his Department's actions or referred himself to the standards process, but, instead, he lashed out and doubled down. <BR /> <BR />Successive attempts have been made in recent weeks, disgracefully, to overlay this debate with sectarianism and prejudice. They are not orange or green issues. People from across our community are horrified at the disregard for the ministerial code, international law and human rights. It is entirely possible to condemn the terrorism of Hamas on 7 October and the genocide that has followed. The previous Member to speak made reference to Oliver Napier and Bob Cooper: I mean, she is not fit to utter their names”
“<BR /> <BR />Of course, the Minister will be keen to claim that his permanent secretary has given him a clean bill of health in a report that, coincidentally, has not seen the light of day. However, I am aware that the head of the Civil Service is undertaking further enquiries that have not yet concluded. <BR /> <BR />Ultimately, confidence is at the heart of the issue, and the manner in which the Minister has responded to the fiasco has not helped in that respect. It is clear that the confidence of teaching unions, the wider public and a majority of parties in the Chamber has been shattered by the Minister's behaviour.”
“That story has since changed, and it goes to the nub of the issue: if the Minister was there in a DUP capacity, he has misused departmental resources by promoting a political visit; if he was there as a Minister, he was potentially in breach of the Functioning of Government Act by not having officials present. Much more seriously, by entering illegally occupied territory in that official capacity, he has brought the Executive into disrepute by egregiously breaching UK foreign policy and ignoring international law. There is also a question about why the Minister had not declared that he was about to receive thousands of pounds in hospitality from the Israeli Government before rising in the Chamber to praise the actions of the IDF. A Minister in any other part of these islands who engaged in that conduct would already be gone.”
“We will not always see eye to eye, and there will be times when we do not have confidence in Ministers' political positions or policy priorities. However, the motion is not about a simple policy disagreement or difference in political opinion; it goes to the heart of a flagrant disregard for international law and the ministerial code. Despite the bluff and bluster in many of the statements that we have heard from the DUP over the past two weeks and, indeed, often because of those statements, key questions remain. <BR /> <BR />On 24 October, the Minister told the BBC that he was, in fact, there not in a ministerial capacity but in a party political one.”
“The propaganda mission by the Education Minister is but the latest distraction. The images of the Minister smiling for photographs in illegally occupied east Jerusalem that were posted on the Department's website were no accident. They were designed to provoke and stir controversy in order to deflect from a mismanaged budget, hikes in the cost of school meals and cuts to education support for some of our most vulnerable children. The hurt felt by pupils, parents and teachers as a result of that cynical stunt is real. They are appalled that a Minister who is responsible for the welfare of our children would not only accept hospitality from a Government who have killed a classroom of children every day but use public resources to whitewash that situation. <BR /> <BR />In a power-sharing Executive, of course we will have different views.”
“Recent months have not been good for the institutions or for politics more generally. There has been a race to the bottom marked by toxic culture wars, nasty personal insults and a politics that is rooted in fear, division and distraction, with the Chamber at times descending into farce.”
“I thank the Member for giving way on that point. As I said, I do not object to the Member's proposal per se. However, given that many bereaved parents have taken the time to respond to the 12-week consultation, does he agree that it would be wrong for us to proceed with primary legislation before we have had an opportunity to take account of their views and listen to them?”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. Unfortunately, I will move the amendment because there have been delays around baby loss certification schemes. Issues only arise if the Department does not meet what it has committed to meeting in relation to delivering the scheme. It has said that it will be by the end of the calendar year. This gives you three months from Royal Assent. If you are going to deliver within that time frame, there is no reason why you would not accept that amendment.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. Minister, it is clear that there will not be support for amendment No 2. In the spirit of allowing space and time for the Department to do further work in collaboration with Ms Forsythe and Mr Frew, I will not move amendment No 2 as part of the voting process.”
“As a constituency colleague, I share the Minister's concern about the B1 listing. Did the Minister make representations to his colleague the Minister for Communities on the listing? Has there been any reappraisal of the Department's plans for the site following the listing?”
“It is debatable as to whether there would be a choice, so voting in favour of that amendment is a particular risk.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I understand the point that he is making. However, clause 11(3) states that the regulations "may" include that. The amendments from Mr Gaston state that the regulations "must" include it and, therefore, severely limit what could be done through secondary legislation. Amendment No 5 from Mr Gaston states:”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I am happy to correct the record. I intended to say 12 weeks, as opposed to 12 months.”
“To try to reduce that relationship simply to biology or to discount it is, frankly, offensive not only to same-sex couples and step-parents but to single parents. We need to stop trying to vilify and judge others who are not like us or who do not live by our values and have a little bit more respect and compassion when it comes to diversity in our society. I am very passionate about clause 8 standing part of the Bill, and I welcome the fact that the Minister brought it forward. <BR /> <BR />That is all that I have to say. I hope that parties will support amendment Nos 1, 2 and 6, and I look forward to continuing to support the Bill as it progresses.”
“It is completely fair that she would wish that her same-sex female partner were able to go to the registry office to register that stillbirth on her behalf at what is a really difficult time. I do not think that it is acceptable that, simply because you are in a same-sex relationship, you are not treated with the same compassion as a heterosexual couple would be. <BR /> <BR />I heard contributions during the debate about traditional family values. It is quite callous to say that, solely on the basis of biology, a partner, be they a same-sex partner or a step-parent, is not a parent to a child. Those people may have held that child's hands as they took their first steps, held the bike as the child took off without stabilisers for the first time and may have sat night in, night out doing homework with that child.”
“That provides sufficient flexibility for women who experience loss to self-certify and access the certificate in circumstances that they deem to be appropriate, not those that we in the Chamber deem to be appropriate for them. We will oppose amendment No 5. <BR /> <BR />On Mr Gaston's opposition to clause 8 and the accompanying schedule, first of all, clause 8 is not about changing the contents of a birth certificate or the registration process. It is about equality in who can access the process. That is of fundamental importance, particularly in those circumstances, which the Bill seeks to rectify, where there is a same-sex female couple and one of the partners has perhaps suffered a baby loss and is experiencing pain and trauma.”
“Either it is an attempt to stir a bit of a culture war and score political points or — this is the more generous interpretation; to be fair, Mr Gaston has said that this is his intention — it is to provide additional flexibility in complex and individual circumstances in which someone may have had to access a medical termination. To be clear, I absolutely favour the widest possible definition of loss, but, in this debate, we must avoid pitting the pain and trauma of one woman against that of another. Unfortunately, there have been attempts to do that in some of the contributions in this debate and previously. Fundamentally, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary because clause 11 of the Bill is clear, as Nuala McAllister said:”
“There is nothing in the proposed content that Mr Gaston has outlined that I necessarily oppose, but I am conscious that the amendment puts the cart before the horse, in that the Department has undertaken a 12-week consultation on the content of baby loss certificates, which will be taken forward through the regulations. It would be wrong to prejudge the views of bereaved parents who have taken the time to respond to that consultation. It would be much better for us to wait in order to ensure that we reflect parents' priorities, views and lived experiences. We should take time to do that before we specify the contents of baby loss certificates. On that basis, the Alliance Party will oppose amendment No 4. <BR /> <BR />There are two ways of looking at amendment No 5.”
“I thank the Member for that intervention. It is a concern. I appreciate what the Minister has said, and he is correct: regulations will come before the Assembly, so we will have an opportunity to scrutinise precisely how the primary legislation is implemented. We will be able to influence that. It is certainly not a foregone conclusion that that will happen, and it is important to bear that in mind, but, as a point of principle, if we do not intend to go down that road, why make provision for it at this stage? <BR /> <BR />I turn to amendment No 4, in the name of Timothy Gaston.”
“I will, but I am being very generous with my interventions.”
“I thank the Member for her intervention. It goes to the crux of the issue. I see no circumstances in which it is appropriate to charge a grieving family for the recognition of their loss. However, if amendment No 2 is not successful, I will support amendment No 3 because it goes some way towards addressing some of my concerns. I recognise that it is an attempt to find a compromise.”
“I thank the Member for that clarification. However, if one of those parents loses their certificate, they would potentially face a charge to have it replaced.”
“It allows for charges to be levied for subsequent copies, and I have difficulty with the idea that charges could be levied if, for example, two parents separate and a copy is made for one of them. That would be an important issue for them, and they, too, would have been affected by the loss of a family member.”
“Of course, there is a difference between policy and legislation, but, with regard to the practical outworkings, no other jurisdiction has felt it necessary to make that policy change as a result of an influx of applications. There have been references to hypothetical situations: I have not heard a concrete example of where the Department would be overwhelmed or the system abused. It would be bad faith for anybody to seek to abuse such a sensitive and important process. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 2, tabled by the Alliance Party, is preferable to the DUP's amendment No 3. I recognise that it goes some way to eliminate a charge for a first certificate or an amended certificate.”
“I thank the Member for that intervention. The subsection (5) that he refers to is the technical amendment to ensure that the Bill reads coherently when laying the requirement that the regulations must be laid before the Assembly within 12 months from the day that the Act receives Royal Assent. My understanding is that there is no substantive change, and that is certainly not the intent of the amendment; rather, it is just to ensure that the Bill reads correctly when the amendment is made. <BR /> <BR />For me, this is a fundamental point of principle. Some issues are beyond charging, and it is important to make that case.”
“I will not rise to some of the patronising comments from the Minister because, fundamentally, I disagree. I see no circumstances, Minister, in which, on this issue, it would be appropriate to levy a charge. There is a difference of perspective on that, and I respect the Minister's view that he would wish to have the ability to bring that to the Assembly in regulation. I concur with Steve Aiken that, if there is no intention to use the powers, why take them? In other jurisdictions where the scheme has been operating, circumstances have not arisen whereby charges would be required.”
“I thank the Member for that intervention.”
“I agree with the Member to an extent. I can understand that the Department may look at certain hypothetical situations where they believe, for example, that the system may be abused. I do not foresee that as a realistic prospect, to be honest, but I can understand why, hypothetically, it would wish to have some powers. However, given the fact that, where schemes have operated in other jurisdictions, no charge has been applied and there have been no circumstances that necessitated a charge, I do not believe that it is necessary for the Department to take that power, if its commitment is to ensure that the certificates are free at the point of access.”
“Whilst that may be this Minister's policy intention, it would be unacceptable if, under a future Minister, baby loss certificates were used as a cost recovery mechanism or to cut departmental costs.”
“Therefore, I feel that it is reasonable to give the Department a little more time than it committed to at Committee Stage in order to, hopefully, ensure that the Department and the Minister feel that they are in a position to support that. I would welcome a response from the Minister in that respect. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 2 stipulates that no charge should be levied for a baby loss certificate. That is a small but meaningful act of compassion. Fundamentally, I do not believe that any parent should ever be asked to pay simply to have their loss recognised. The Department has said that it does not intend to levy a charge. If that is the case, I hope that there will be support for the amendment to place it beyond doubt.”
“The Department has been clear throughout the legislative process that it intends to deliver the scheme within that timescale and, indeed, by the end of this calendar year, as the previous contributor mentioned. Given the delays and the many false dawns that there have been in setting up a baby loss certification scheme, it is entirely appropriate to give bereaved parents and campaigners some confidence that those commitments will be honoured and that the scheme will be subjected to no further unnecessary delay. <BR /> <BR />I recognise that including the clause with the choice of 12 months as opposed to a shorter timescale would create a level of legal risk for the Department.”
“The first was the emphasis on the need for sensitivity and the importance of language when we discuss such issues, because these are often triggering, difficult, painful and distressing subjects for bereaved parents. I was also struck by the degree of political unanimity in the Committee on the need to make provision for baby loss certificates. I hope that we can maintain some degree of consensus and unanimity as we move forward. <BR /> <BR />The amendments that I have tabled would build on, rather than contradict, the progressive and compassionate approach that the Minister set out in the original draft of the Bill. Amendment Nos 1 and 6 to clause 11, when read together, specify that the proposed baby loss certificate scheme must be brought forward within 12 weeks of the Bill obtaining Royal Assent.”
“Like others, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Consideration Stage of the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill. <BR /> <BR />The loss of a baby during pregnancy can be a deeply traumatic experience for parents, but it is too often met in our society with silence or treated as though it is taboo. During the Bill's Committee Stage, we heard from parents who had experienced loss, from professionals who had supported them and from campaigners who were advocating a better approach to tackling the issue and recognising loss. I pay tribute to the women, parents and campaigners, including the Little Forget Me Nots Trust, who told their personal stories with enormous courage and selflessness in the pursuit of better. <BR /> <BR />I was struck by two things in those deliberations.”
“Unlike other parties in the Chamber, Alliance has been consistent in our condemnation of both Hamas terrorism and the genocide that is unfolding under the Israeli Government. Let us set aside the bluff and bluster, Minister. Were you there in a party political capacity, in which case it would have been inappropriate for departmental resources to be used to promote your trip, or were you there as a Minister, in which case you have potentially breached the Functioning of Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021 by not having officials at that engagement? This is not about the conflict in the Middle East; this is about your obligations as a Minister under the ministerial code.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Far be it from me to agree with the Member for North Antrim Mr Gaston, but on the topic of swinging the lead, and given that it has been widely publicised that rates are unpaid on the constituency office of a former DUP MP in North Antrim, will the Member be pursuing his colleagues in respect of those unpaid rates? Or is this a case of, "Do as I say, not as I do" from the DUP?”