Roy Beggs
East Antrim · Ulster Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“I declare an interest as owner of 25 acres of agricultural land; also, my parents run a small agricultural business. <BR /> <BR />There is a shortage of fertiliser, and the Minister has referred to the present difficulties in Ukraine that are contributing to that. That shortage exists even at the exorbitant cost of £1,000 per ton.”
“of public bodies in Northern Ireland. That is vital in order to reassure the public that money is being spent appropriately. That is to be done independently.”
“There has been a very close working relationship and a close partnership. Where issues needed highlighted and where the Assembly, through its scrutiny mechanisms, needed to dig deeper to get better value and better accountability, that occurred.”
“<BR /> <BR />I also want to reflect on the close working relationship that there has been between the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Northern Ireland Audit Office, which the C&AG oversees and manages, and the Assembly, particularly the Public Accounts Committee.”
“As we consider this motion to nominate a new Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland, it is important that we reflect on the importance that the role has in any democracy. The C&AG in Northern Ireland is the head of the Northern Ireland Audit Office.”
“P&O has brutally cast its workforce aside in a Dickensian fashion. There was no consultation or notice, and the company delivered a live message by video link. Will the Minister clarify whether the P&O redundancy announcement is covered by maritime law, Northern Ireland employment law or GB employment law?”
The complete record
Every one of 1,772 lines we hold for Roy Beggs, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 23 of 36.
“<BR /> <BR />Secondly, and relevant to the legislation, I will highlight my concerns about the current wording of clause 13 and explain how my amendment will strengthen the accountability of special advisers by including them under the possible scrutiny remit of the ombudsman when complaints are not addressed satisfactorily. <BR />Paragraph 4 of the code of conduct for special advisers indicates that special advisers are civil servants who are appointed under article 3 of the Civil Service Commissioners (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, as amended. There are some exemptions, for instance on the general requirement on recruitment, and there is allowance to have a degree of a political role. <BR /> <BR />Paragraph 5 of the code of conduct for special advisers states:”
“I open the debate on the third group of amendments by highlighting my concerns, particularly with clause 13. I will concentrate my comments on amendment No 31, which was tabled in my name. <BR /> <BR />Why do I have concerns about the current wording in the Bill, and why do I think that an amendment is required? First, I will highlight how inappropriate actions by special advisers are not adequately covered by the legislation and regulations at present. There is concern that inappropriate actions have occurred but that there has been no role to date for the ombudsman, under the 2013 code of conduct for special advisers — or, for that matter, any role for the Civil Service — to instigate final disciplinary investigations.”
“On a point of order, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. I apologise for my absence during Question Time. Questions proceeded faster than I had anticipated.”
“It is a sensible piece of legislation; it is modernising to reflect changes. As others said, it will give greater flexibility, which perhaps reflects more how individuals may move on and not necessarily be with one employer their entire working career. It creates increased flexibility with pension schemes and yet provides protections. As others said, there is a single regulatory regime for pension schemes throughout the United Kingdom, with a single ombudsman, and it makes sense to continue in that fashion. I support the Bill.”
“I, too, support the Bill. The pension process, like that of welfare, is extremely complex, and we need to take great care with any suggested changes. <BR /> <BR />It is clear from the Bill that we had very limited opportunity to change things. Indeed, during the evidence that we were given, it became apparent that the schemes available in Northern Ireland are GB based and that any proposal to amend the guidance on them might eliminate the choice currently available to Northern Ireland consumers. It is vital that there is a wide choice and a degree of healthy competition, so I am pleased that the Committee and, to date, the Assembly, have supported maintaining parity on this important issue.”
“Is the Member not rather uncomfortable that, in agreeing to this LCM, he is authorising approval for new draft legislation that has not yet been approved by Westminster and is still subject to amendment? What is the logic of doing that?”
“Does the Member accept that the British Government have done nothing wrong in publishing the document, but that what has been done wrong is including in this legislative consent motion reference to a document that we are not aware of? It is those who have tabled the motion today before the document is published who have done wrong.”
“The Member rightly highlighted the difficulty that arose when the regulations came before the Committee. Does the Member agree that it would be useful to know whether, when the legislative consent motion goes through, which I understand will delegate powers over social security and welfare, probably for the remainder of this year, all the regulations will be put through at Westminster? Does that mean that the Committee will not be able to see, adjust or make a choice on them? Would it not be helpful to have clarity on that issue so that we do not find ourselves back here again when someone finds a difficulty with some of the regulations?”
“<BR /> <BR />As I said, I have concerns about the delays; the speed — not even in the last 24 hours but the last 18 hours — with which this has moved; the lack of information available to Assembly Members to allow them to come to a reasoned position; and the fact that the motion approves draft legislation that may not end up being the final legislation. For all those reasons, I have great concerns about what Sinn Féin and the DUP are trying to rush through the Assembly today.”
“I turn to the proposals in the published document. The mitigation for tax credits is flat at £60 million. Why is it flat at £60 million? From following up concerns about the current proposals, my understanding is that the earlier years, before the minimum wage increases and another tax threshold increase, is the time when those who work on low incomes would be most significantly adversely affected. Why are we not at least trying to deal with that issue by providing a higher level of protection at the earlier stage rather than this flat £60 million?”
“The minimum wage would increase, so it would all balance out. It very soon became apparent, however, that the tax credit changes were moving much too fast and that those on a low income would be significantly worse off and, as a result, would not benefit from the increase in the tax threshold and the minimum wage enough to balance out the cuts. That is a live discussion that is still going on at Westminster and even among some key members of the Conservative Party who have concerns about it. If that is a live discussion — we all await a Chancellor's statement — why is it proposed to give consent for the Assembly to pass this over to Westminster to take the final decisions on it? I find it very strange. Why give consent for further changes that have not yet happened and — who knows? — may not even happen?”
“The explanation from the Chancellor was that there were increasing tax thresholds and that individuals would be paying less tax.”
“<BR /> <BR />I will now turn to another aspect of the motion. It references the welfare clauses of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, as initially introduced in Westminster. I want an explanation of why this has been introduced in this way and why it has to be expedited even before it becomes law in Westminster, bearing in mind, of course, that I would have thought that there is the likelihood of some amendment occurring to that legislation? Why are we approving legislation that has not yet been finalised? <BR /> <BR />One particular aspect of that Bill is the effect that it has on tax credits. I and many others, and indeed many politicians in the rest of the United Kingdom, have expressed concerns about it. The key issue is the proposal to cut tax credits significantly for those on low incomes.”
“Originally, £96·7 million of mitigation was to be built in for welfare; the new proposal is for £90 million. In 2018-19, there was originally £134 million-worth of mitigation built in for welfare; the new proposal is for £90 million. That is £44 million less. I acknowledge that mitigation has been built in for tax credit, but it is strange that those who turned down £134 million in mitigation for 2018-19 a few months ago are now content to approve mitigation of £90 million. That is what is happening. Nobody knew what was coming, but, nevertheless, a higher level of mitigation was turned down. <BR /> <BR />Why did we, as an Assembly, not have the political maturity to take decisions to deal with the difficult issues, the real political issues, ourselves and deal with them in a timely fashion? That would have been much better.”
“<BR /> <BR />I was listening earlier and I may have missed this, but it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm whether all the amendments agreed by the House in the passage of the 2015 Welfare Reform Bill will be implemented or whether it will go back to the original Bill as introduced in 2012. Can he confirm that all the amendments approved by the Assembly up until the Final Stage are included; is that what we are talking about? I want clarity on that issue. <BR /> <BR />Mr Dickson mentioned the enhanced welfare packages earlier. It is important that we look very carefully at them. When you look at what was proposed originally, and I am looking at what was proposed for the year 2016-17, the numbers are around the same. For the year 2017-18, the numbers are roughly the same.”
“<BR /> <BR />Consenting to pass this over to Westminster is a clear admission of a lack of political maturity. Any reasonable person could have worked out that we would end up here at some point; that we had to implement the 2012 Welfare Reform Bill and make adjustments that were affordable. Sadly, some chose to ignore that, and they have now, finally, agreed to pass it over to Westminster. Maybe they do not want any fingerprints on it, but, in passing it over, they are passing that responsibility elsewhere: they have the responsibility for having taken that decision.”
“That is good to know, but we are in the middle of the debate now, and I have had little chance to consider its 126 pages. Hence I supported a delay to allow for proper consideration. After waiting three years, surely one more week to understand properly what we were doing and proposing to pass from this House to Westminster would have been appropriate and reasonable. Nonetheless, I respect the decision of the Assembly. Sinn Féin and the DUP have voted everybody else down and decided to push on regardless of others' lack of knowledge. I noticed that some of your colleagues were waving, presumably, that document: I am sorry; I did my best. I did what was reasonable to try to find out what the motion was about and find relevant documents, but I was unable to identify them prior to the debate.”
“There was no prior sight of it or notice of some of its implications. I got a copy late yesterday evening and spent the evening going through each of the 67 pages, trying to understand it and its implications, particularly for this motion, which I heard rumored for today. I went to the Business Office before leaving the Assembly last night between 5.30 and 5.45 pm and inquired whether the motion was available. It was not. <BR /> <BR />The motion was published, and, for the first time, I became aware of the draft Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2015. Prior to that, I was unaware of its existence. In fact, I tried to google it this morning and could not come across it anywhere. I thank the Minister for letting me know that it is on the Northern Ireland Office website.”
“Yet there was not the political maturity to take the difficult decision simply to move largely to where we are today by accepting the welfare reform legislation in 2015 and building in some mitigation through amendments so that we could work with the new computer system and produce deliverable and affordable measures of mitigation to protect the most vulnerable in our community. That Bill fell before the summer. <BR /> <BR />After the summer, the Secretary of State commenced talks at Stormont House. I personally attended on four or five occasions when welfare reform was being discussed, but there was no meaningful discussion of those pertinent issues. Then, suddenly, what do we find, out of the blue comes the two-party, DUP/Sinn Féin agreement, published yesterday. It really was out of the blue.”
“We were eventually told that, if we wanted to maintain that system, it was highly questionable whether that would even be technically possible. We could revert to a paper system, but, of course, that would be irresponsible, as many mistakes would occur and there would be huge delays. Alternatively, we could have bought an all-singing, all-dancing computer system, to be delivered in perhaps three or four years' time at a cost of £1·5 billion or £2 billion. These were the decisions facing us.”
“The concern of everyone, including senior officials at the Department responsible for administering social welfare benefits in Northern Ireland, was that that position is not technically achievable. It is impossible to deliver. How do you calculate the difference between what someone might have got a year ago and what they might get in 10 years' time? The position is totally unachievable and unaffordable. The U-turn, when it occurred, turned the Assembly Budget into a fantasy Budget, and there is now a major financial crisis working its way through every Department. <BR /> <BR />Another implication of not approving the new system and trying to maintain current benefits is that we would need to maintain the ageing UK computer system, which is decades old and due to be turned off in 18 months' time.”
“Martin McGuinness said on 9 March of this year:”
“That came through the Stormont House Agreement, which was a cross-party agreement. Almost immediately, there was an apparent U-turn by Sinn Féin on what everybody thought had been agreed. Sinn Féin moved from costed, affordable measures to the irresponsible politics of blank cheques. <BR /> <BR />I have a couple of quotes. This one is from Conor Murphy, who said on 11 March:”
“The Member makes a valid point, and I will deal with further mitigation, because there is even a question mark over that. <BR /> <BR />I am talking about delays in introducing the 2012 Welfare Reform Bill and the failure to deal with it maturely in the Assembly. That was certainly not helped by the then Social Development Minister, Nelson McCausland, who brought forward the unamended, unchanged legislation that had been improved at Westminster, which included, for instance, reference to those who had suffered in the London bomb, but there was no regard for those who may have suffered here over past decades. Clearly, there was an imbalance. <BR /> <BR />There then followed a long delay, and, earlier this year, following the Stormont House Agreement, the welfare reform legislation started to flow properly through the Assembly.”
“Those amendments were on issues such as the bedroom tax, which we felt was inappropriate, particularly as no alternatives were available. We now find that, by failing to deal with welfare reform, we have all had to suffer. Everyone in Northern Ireland has had to suffer. We faced financial penalties in each of the last number of years, and that has adversely affected a wide range of services. I suspect that it primarily affects health, but it also affects education and roads.”
“<BR /> <BR />Ulster Unionists regret the delay in dealing with the significant and important issue of welfare reform; the failure of the Assembly to deal with it; and now, finally, passing the buck to Westminster to deal with it. Just to remind everybody: we were talking about the 2012 Welfare Reform Act almost three years ago. We have had three years to show our political maturity and to take political decisions, but what are we doing? We are now deciding to pass the buck to Westminster, and that does not bode well. The issue has been here for a long time, and we really should have dealt with it ourselves. Indeed, Ulster Unionists had amendments down since 2012 to try to deal with welfare in a mature fashion.”
“When I look closely at the legislative consent motion, I see four key aspects. First, the consent that the Northern Ireland (Welfare Reform) Bill 2015, which fell in the Assembly, is to be taken forward by the Westminster Parliament, so I know exactly what that is. Secondly, the approval of the welfare clauses in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, as initially introduced at Westminster — not as they ended up or were delivered. Thirdly, there is the draft Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2015. Fourthly, there are the enhanced payments from the agreement announced yesterday. I will try to cover each of those in my contribution.”
“Is she satisfied that her Department has an adequate budget to look after the repair of street lighting, maintenance of the road —”
“Over the past couple of months, the road has regularly been coned off for re-planing and resurfacing to meet Roads Service standards. When will that come to an end, and when will the maintenance of the road, the lights and, indeed, winter gritting be added to the burden already resting on her Department?”
“The Minister referred to his action plan and the need to improve the lot of prisoners. Does he accept that it is also vital that we improve conditions for prison officers and that we improve their morale? Has he approached the Secretary of State to see whether the previous impositions need to be changed in order to manage that prison in an effective manner?”
“It places a duty on DARD to secure cooperation and collaboration between Departments and district councils. With the new councils' community planning role, there is the potential for them to play a much more significant role in planning for rural communities, and I hope that that will be the case. <BR /> <BR />Ulster Unionists are content that this legislation passes to the next stage; we will support it.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Bill should apply to every Executive decision that has an impact on rural communities. Education will be one of the most prominent Departments to be affected, but we cannot forget issues such as the future structure and delivery of local health services either. For example, had this Bill been in place, I wonder if changes to care for the elderly in their homes would be viewed any differently. <BR /> <BR />Much will come down to the interpretation of the Bill, not least the key phrase, "consider rural needs". What exactly does it mean? Does it mean consider and change, if the Department or public bodies find that the proposal will have a damaging impact on rural communities, or does it mean consider and then progress, regardless of what has been found? <BR /> <BR />Clause 4 will be one of the most important clauses.”
“In England, for example, there is a presumption against the closure of rural schools, and Scottish authorities are legally required to explore alternatives, as well as look at the impact of closure, particularly any adverse effects on the local community. <BR /> <BR />It is worthwhile remembering that closing a smaller rural school would often lead to significant additional new costs, such as transport, and to adverse effects on the local community and parents. Indeed, a report by Ulster University found that if smaller post-primary schools in Northern Ireland were to close — all 76 of them — there would be a saving of only 0·9% of the entire school budget, due to the extra costs that would need to be met. Does the Department of Education care? Will this Bill make it care? We will have to wait and see.”
“The remaining two schools — one has since closed — have approximately 120 pupils. The annual number of births in the Islandmagee ward is growing; it went up from 20 in 2011 to 26 in the most recent figures, so there is clear sustainability. What do we have? Is this one of the schools that has been prioritised for new-build funding? No, that has yet to be delivered, and there is huge uncertainty. If Departments are going to talk about rural needs, they are going to have to deliver them. Actions speak an awful lot louder than words. <BR /> <BR />Northern Ireland has fallen far behind other jurisdictions in the UK in rural-proofing decisions on schools.”
“Since we are talking about protecting rural communities and working together cohesively, I highlight the case of Islandmagee Primary School. This is a particular example of how the system has not worked. Some 10 years ago, three primary schools — Ballypriormore, Kilcoan, Mullaghdubh — agreed to amalgamate. It took considerable effort for each school, its governors and parents to buy into that. Ultimately, it was agreed to move to a new-build site. There followed a protracted delay in the planning process before a site was established. Then, we had to wait for the funding for the site. In 2006, a site was eventually bought, but it took far too long. Next, what did we find? A minimum number of 105 pupils must be enrolled. Of course, that caused everything to be frozen, and there was no more development.”
“Further travel could endanger such arrangements or, as a result, require expensive additional childcare costs to be borne by rural families.”
“<BR /> <BR />Schools, and indeed playgroups, are vital to maintaining the cohesion of rural communities. The school is something that the community generally gathers round, and it is vital in a rural community. Were a playgroup to lose funding and fall, the option of travelling to a nursery school would be removed, so I would like to see increased focus on practical issues to protect schools and playgroups. If a playgroup falls, it puts at risk local schools that the young people would naturally have attended, so this is very important to rural communities. Often, child-minding arrangements are with the extended family, and they may be able to deliver and collect the children from an adjacent school or playgroup.”
“I highlight, in particular, the recent Audit Office report that showed that enrolment numbers, which were contributing to empty-seat calculations in our schools, can be out by as much as 20% in some schools, so the basis of those sheets and figures can be discredited. At present, 55% of Northern Ireland's primary schools and 20% of its post-primary schools are in rural areas. Many of them face an uncertain future as a result of the flawed belief in the minimum enrolment number of 105 pupils for primary schools and 500 for post-primary schools. Senior officials recently suggested that the minimum should be 800 or 900 pupils for post-primary schools. It is not at all surprising to see the recent viability audits revealing that rural schools are much more likely to be identified as "in stress" than their urban counterparts.”
“At long last, and after unnecessary delay, DARD produced the Bill that is before us today. It places a duty on public authorities to consider rural needs. That is a laudable goal, but what exactly does it mean? My party hopes that it means a genuine grasp of the challenges of living in rural areas, and how decisions to change services will often have a very different impact in a rural community than in the middle of a town or city. Take education, for example. In recent years, we have had the widely discredited viability audits. They were followed by the wholly dysfunctional area planning process. Never mind not working in rural areas, it did not work in urban ones. Schools were assessed simply by looking at numbers on sheets, enrolments and deficits particularly.”
“<BR /> <BR />In the so-called action plan, there was an absence of specific and measurable targets against which Departments and Ministers could be held to account. It appeared to many that the plan, and much of the Department's hype around it, was being used simply as a fig leaf to try to present an image of something being done. Unfortunately, that set the tone for much of the debate since.”
“I rise on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party to support this legislation. I live in a rural community and am a governor of a rural primary school, Glynn Primary School. <BR /> <BR />Rural proofing is needed, and the need for public bodies to carry it out has long been spoken about in the Chamber yet little has happened. For several years, the rural community was promised what was initially called a rural White Paper, a document designed to prepare the way for legislation that would protect the rights of rural dwellers to basic services. Out of that came the rural White Paper action plan, a broad-brush list of aspirations. Of the 90 proposed actions, however, 22 were merely commitments to continue to do something as if the rural community should be grateful that services already available were not being withdrawn.”
“I look forward to further scrutiny and to working with the Committee, whatever Committee is deemed to be appropriate to deal with it, to try to make sure that we deliver legislation which meets the needs of our constituents and minimises the disruption that could occur in their lives as a result of metal theft.”
“That really does show the lack of joined-up government that we have had to date. I highlighted this issue several years ago in a question on the Programme for Government. I was referred to individual Departments. It is such a pity that this was not built into the Programme for Government at some stage, even belatedly, in order to recognise that, even though it is cross-departmental, there is a gap and that joined-up government should bring it forward. <BR /> <BR />I am pleased to have received general support for the principles of the Bill at this stage.”
“Certainly, their advice is needed to ensure that the legislation is got right, but we should be looking to the outworkings of the legislation to ensure that its costs are kept to a minimum and that it is able to do what it sets out to achieve. <BR /> <BR />One of the most telling aspects of this debate on the Bill is the empty ministerial chair.”
“<BR /> <BR />Ian Milne indicated his broad support, but he was concerned about the cross-border aspect. As I have explained, there is already a requirement for the audit and traceability of material being purchased at licensed dealers' sites in the Republic of Ireland, so it is us who are open for abuse at present, with material coming the other direction. Certainly, I agree with him that we need to keep bureaucracy to a minimum. When we look at this, we should not be arguing over the Department of the Environment or the Department of Justice. We have to look at the end consumer, the user and the businesses that will have to operate under the legislation, and we should be designing it to meet their needs, not those of civil servants who may have a particular specialism in the area.”
“This issue needs to be dealt with appropriately and with a degree of urgency, because it has taken too long already. <BR /> <BR />As I have said, legislation exists in other parts of the United Kingdom and, indeed, a traceability system is in existence in the Republic of Ireland. Interestingly, she mentioned the fact that local authorities can have a role in England and Wales. With the reform of local government, perhaps there will be a review and a need for the involvement of local councils. Certainly, it is they who will have environmental officers on the ground in each area. I am open to that issue being taken forward. There certainly needs to be collaboration with the Justice Department and the Environment Department, as I said earlier in response to Paul Girvan's comment on it being a hot potato.”
“<BR /> <BR />I am sure that, ultimately, both Departments will be required to interact, because there are issues involving justice and the environment, but we are not having to reinvent the wheel. Luckily, experienced draftsmen have already crafted the legislation in England and Wales and, indeed, Scotland. We just need to refine that to make it applicable to our situation. There is some good wording out there to base it on. <BR /> <BR />Anna Lo highlighted the theft of lead and copper, and the issues that she is aware of in her constituency. She mentioned an issue that I have not come across — how a gas leak had resulted from metal theft. So, it is not just a petty crime; major dangers can be caused to the public as a result of metal theft.”
“Alban Maginness supported the general principles of the Bill. I thank him for that. He highlighted the issue of the departmental conflict. That has been a problem from the beginning. Paul Girvan said that it was a bit of a hot potato. He talked about how everybody seemed to agree that it was a good idea but did not want to take it on board. He said that there was a feeling that somebody else should deal with it. <BR /> <BR />All I have to say to that is that the criminal does not care which Minister deals with it; the constituent whose lead flashing gets stolen or whose copper pipes get ripped out does not care which Minister deals with it. Where is our joined-up government? We need it dealt with, and dealt with efficiently. Let us not have a fight over whose Department is responsible for it. It is important that it is dealt with.”
“One of my aims has been to try to reduce costs by minimising any sort of bureaucracy. He also enquired about the power of a constable to close a site down. That appears under a provision on dealing with unlicensed sites. If a site is clearly unlicensed, he would have the power to close it down. We are not talking about authorised sites; we are talking about unlicensed sites in that regard.”
“If there were an application for a new licence, will there be two groups of people going out to look at a site?”