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 28 of 36.
“First, I would like to pick up on a couple of comments that Members have made. There was a comment from the Chair of the Committee that the Department continues to prop up Translink. I, for one, value public transport in my constituency, and so do my constituents. I do not wish to go towards a laissez-faire, private approach, where many vulnerable rural routes will be at risk. Even at the minute, the town services are being consulted on.”
“Does the Member acknowledge that the Roads Service has always wanted more money for maintenance but the Finance Minister has regularly used it as a means of utilising underfunding in other Departments through in-year monitoring? Although he has made good use of the money late, it is not something that anybody would wish for; it is simply a mechanism that the Executive have chosen to use.”
“Will the Member acknowledge that, in the absence of a voluntary redundancy scheme that would bring savings in-year and allow more funding to go towards issues such as potholes, it is difficult to make significant savings? Will he also acknowledge that he and his party are stopping that scheme coming in?”
“What suggestion do you have for the Minister to live within his means for the Budget you approved?”
“If I were in local government today, I would be looking at community planning and the needs of the community and trying to put ideas together to get all the departmental money to lead to better outputs for our local communities.”
“I genuinely believe that they can bring about advantages rather than continuing with the duplication of services that exists, but we need that drive to go forward and individual Departments not to work in individual silos. Who will take that forward? I understand that there have been a couple of pilot schemes, but I would welcome any update on that subject. Has the Committee had any further feedback since the report in 2013? Can the Minister say anything more about it?”
“I want to continue. <BR /> <BR />I will move into a more constructive mode. I noticed in the Committee's report into bus transport in 2013 that there was a suggestion that all Departments should work together to make better use of money collectively and that we should look to how Scotland had introduced working across Departments. That has failed to happen here. With community planning coming forward, local councils could play a key role in working with all the Departments to make better use of our limited money for public transport. It is vital that we look at something new, and I hope that the Committee can drive that issue forward to protect local communities and ensure that more money goes to community transport.”
“I agree that that should be avoided as much as possible, but I also note that the Committee were critical of the fare increases by Translink. Those will affect many people who are not entitled to free transport and may well be working, yet the Committee criticised the increases. Where does the Committee want the money to be funded from?”
“When I was a local councillor, it was recommended that, at each budget, you should have 10% of your annual turnover in reserve for unforeseen matters and day-to-day running costs. What is the advice on a reserve for community transport? This is public money, and it should be used for its purposes, not sit in a bank account. I hope that that will alleviate some of the apparent reductions that might occur but I have to acknowledge that, with a reduced budget, there will unfortunately have to be reductions. Again, I am looking for someone to suggest alternatives in the day-to-day running costs in the Department. Where does the money come from? I hope that members of the Committee will support bids for additional funding.”
“That, in turn, would take pressure off other organisations where, unfortunately and regrettably, cuts have been imposed. Without those options, what alternatives are there? I put that back to the Committee members. Perhaps those of you who have yet to speak and the Chairman can suggest alternatives later in the debate. <BR /> <BR />When I looked at the feedback on the draft budget, I noticed that the Committee commented largely on the capital reductions. That does not solve the problem of the day-to-day running costs faced by the Department. I notice that it welcomed the Minister's requirement for Translink to draw on its resources. I want to know what resources are held by the community transport organisations. Are they too high? I do not know. Does the Department require some of them to be drawn on?”
“<BR /> <BR />It is important that we attempt to protect front-line services and, in particular, protect the most vulnerable and isolated in our community. Let us also remember we are talking about the budgets before the impasse of welfare reform hit us. That is still hanging over all of this. It is also important that we plan our budgets well ahead in Northern Ireland. There has been very poor long-term planning by the Finance Minister and the Executive collectively. I understand that the Finance Minister knew the draft Budget allocation for this financial year in July 2013, so why, in June 2015, have the Executive still not put a funding package in place, with the finance behind it, to fund a voluntary redundancy scheme to reduce the number of civil servants?”
“It is important to recognise and pay tribute to the community transport system, which benefits many community groups. In my area, I used to be involved with Larne Youth, which provided a vital minibus service to young people, and I would like to acknowledge that from the start. Community transport provides a vital service to many vulnerable and disadvantaged people, as well as to young people. That has to be recognised. <BR /> <BR />I have not yet heard during the debate what suggestions the Committee has. I have heard criticism of Translink's review of its bus services and I heard the Chairman say that it is looking at its least profitable routes, but what is his suggestion? I have not heard alternative suggestions.”
“The Minister has alluded to the process of determining who will be successful. Will she also indicate when the funding will be available and when it must be delivered by, so that it does not drag out? Can she also indicate any other limitations or constraints on the funding so that any urgent issues, such as health and safety situations and essential improvements, can be made to benefit the junior game?”
“Does the Member recognise that the deficit levels were growing out of control under the Labour Government before the crisis struck?”
“Does the Member agree with me that a better time to bring forward suggestions would have been at Consideration Stage or Further Consideration Stage, when amendments could have been made and ideas taken on board? They voted for the legislation at those stages.”
“The Member used the word "squandered". Aside from the £114 million, does he not acknowledge that spurning the offer of the voluntary redundancy scheme, which would enable changes to happen in a sensitive and planned manner, and refusing to pass the Welfare Reform Bill will place the Northern Ireland Executive and our collective Budget in a much worse position? Will he advise how savings are to be made, given the critical situation that our Budget is in?”
“The Minister referred to her application to the voluntary redundancy scheme. She will, however, be aware that her party's opposition to welfare reform, on which the scheme depended, means that it is unlikely to be available. Can she advise us whether she has any funding in her Department to pay for a voluntary redundancy scheme, or will she have to overlook a compulsory redundancy scheme?”
“Will the Member acknowledge that, whilst the legislation is required to be approved here and we can deviate from it, we must pay for any deviation? So, we have the authority to change it, but we must pay for it out of our limited block grant.”
“<BR /> <BR />So, the question is clear: is Sinn Féin prepared to reject today's Bill, lose the additional protection that comes with it, terminate the supplementary payments fund and remove all the other positive aspects that were linked to it during the negotiations at the end of last year, all for the sake of a few votes in the Republic of Ireland? As we go forward, I ask the people of Northern Ireland to remember how different parties voted on this matter and, further down the line, when the inevitable starts to happen, to realise who caused it and recall the warnings that everybody clearly understood were coming down the line. Yet politicians, it appears, are choosing to ignore the political reality. I support the Bill.”
“So, they are expressing their opposition to the Bill, regardless of the implications for the people of Northern Ireland, regardless of the most vulnerable and regardless of potential cuts to our health service — perhaps £200 million is coming out of health. How will you explain that to our most vulnerable citizens who are in ill health and need medical interventions? I would like to hear an answer from any Sinn Féin Member remaining to contribute to the debate. How will they solve that? How will they avoid that? Wishing for something different does not deliver it. <BR /> <BR />The Dublin leadership of Sinn Féin has viewed the Welfare Reform Bill as a threat to exposing the rank hypocrisy of what its party does daily in Northern Ireland compared with what it says, which is that it opposes austerity in the Republic.”
“Sinn Féin has looked South and remembered that, there, it claims to be the anti-cuts party.”
“Short-term clawbacks, little planning and little notice — that is poor use of public funds, and we are in danger of repeating that this year. I say this to those who will vote against the Bill: you bear a huge responsibility. That is coming down the track. That is the political reality, and avoiding it does not solve the problem. Other costs will come back from other Departments to pay for the failure of the Bill to go through. Some parties, such as Sinn Féin, saw no contradiction in standing with posters earlier this year saying, "Stop Tory Cuts" while, at the same time, individual Ministers were implementing the reduced budgets that had been handed to them. I mentioned that earlier. <BR /> <BR />I will get back to the journey of the Bill. It now appears that it will fall at the very last hurdle.”
“Of course, never ones to miss a chance to spin a tale to suit their own needs, they almost sounded as if they convinced themselves that what they were saying was absolutely true. Of course, it was not. Basic mathematics and honesty were not important. Nevertheless, the failure to progress the Bill came at a cost of £87 million, which we did not have to spend on other public services. Not only were key public services cut to pay for that, but it happened late in year. <BR /> <BR />Members will recall that the June monitoring round was finalised, I think, at the end of July, and it was then perhaps another couple of months before each Department announced how it was going to claw back the amount that was levied on it within the short, six-month period that remained. That is the worst way that any Government can manage.”
“Anyone who observed his work on the Committee was left in no doubt about his genuine interest in not only ensuring that the reforms did not have a devastating impact on communities across Northern Ireland but that they were as fair as possible. He certainly set this party's course of direction on the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Aspects of the DUP's management of the Bill and the financial management related to it have been unhelpful. Unsurprisingly, however, after presiding over the mismanagement of previous Budgets, the DUP sought to lay all the Executive's financial ills from last year at the feet of failure to progress welfare reform. That was despite the £87 million in fines accounting for less than half of the £200 million shortfall in the Executive funds.”
“I am firmly of the belief that, if we do not approve it, somebody else will, at some point, approve a system of welfare reform for Northern Ireland. We do not know whether they will take those mitigations into consideration. The responsibility will pass to others because budgetary and other issues mean that, in the long term, it is simply not sustainable to maintain the position of not adopting these measures. <BR /> <BR />During its passage, the Social Development Committee undertook the task of reviewing every aspect of the Bill. On behalf of me and the rest of the Ulster Unionist Party Assembly group, I take this opportunity to thank Michael Copeland for his outstanding hard work on the Bill.”
“There is provision for split universal credit where there are issues in households. There is the direct payment of housing benefit to landlords to prevent the increasing likelihood of evictions if money that was designed to go to housing benefit was not actually used for housing costs. That is another positive change that was being built in. Then there was the discretionary housing protection. There were other changes, such as the reduction in the maximum period of sanctions from three years to 18 months. Provisions were built in to protect those who have a disability. That was done in a time-limited and proportionate manner. So, significant changes were built into the raw legislation that came here.”
“The Bill we are being asked to vote on today is better shaped than it was three years ago, and there was an opportunity to at least mitigate some of the worst consequences that would flow from welfare reform. <BR /> <BR />I welcome my party's amendments to the Bill. The early amendments that went down in April 2013 highlighted some of our concerns about the frequency of payments, the need for split payments, the provision of medical evidence and a desire for a Northern Ireland PIP pilot scheme. While the Bill is better for those changes, we would have preferred additional changes, such as improvements in welfare advice. <BR /> <BR />Let us recognise that there are many positive changes, as the Minister highlighted. The frequency of payment has moved from a monthly universal credit payment to twice monthly.”
“How do we continue to calculate into the future, whether it is one year, six years or 10 years, the difference between the benefits that someone in Northern Ireland would get under the old system if we do not change and the system that will be applicable in other parts of the United Kingdom? It said that it has alternatives, but it has never shared them, and we have still not heard today what those alternatives are. <BR /> <BR />During the Bill's stages, there were decisions by the DUP to kill off the vast majority of formal amendments through the abuse, in my mind, of the petition of concern. Was that done as a diversionary tactic to save Sinn Féin's blushes at the time? Perhaps. But it did, as others said, prevent the Assembly from reaching its view in a simple vote.”
“That is absolute nonsense. Is he claiming that Sinn Féin secured each and every one of the mitigation measures? Is he claiming that Sinn Féin solely secured the additional funding for the transfer from DLA to PIP? Does he forget that many of the safeguards were already agreed over 12 months ago? <BR />The simple fact is that it said originally that it would not implement welfare reform, then it agreed to do it, and then it flip-flopped once again. It is unstable government. It said that future claimants would be protected. They cannot be. That is the reality.”
“At the last Sinn Féin ard-fheis, Mr Brady said that, during the recent Stormont House talks, the relentless tide of austerity was abated. How was it abated? Our Budget is determined at Westminster. That is part of the Belfast Agreement, and we have to live within the Budget that comes to us. Sinn Féin was so anti-austerity that it agreed to cut 20,000 posts in the public sector; posts that we cannot afford to maintain. It was so anti-austerity that it was a cheerleader for a Budget that has witnessed its own Education Minister admit that he will have to make 1,500 teachers and support staff redundant by September. Again, how has the tide of austerity been abated? <BR /> <BR />On top of the supplementary payment fund and all the other protections, he even claimed that Sinn Féin delivered a £564 million welfare package.”
“We are creating instability and making it more difficult to bring jobs in and more difficult for existing employers in Northern Ireland to invest. The issue of corporation tax is being held back. It was a part of the agreement but, if it were devolved, what exactly would Sinn Féin be proposing? Would it propose increasing corporation tax, perhaps to pay for some of the additional welfare benefits? The Budget has to balance, and there seems to be a lack of reality in actions that are being taken by those who should know better. Sinn Féin is showing the citizens of Northern Ireland and, indeed, the Republic of Ireland that it is unfit to govern and cannot create stability either in its decision-making or its ability to live within the Budget.”
“Sinn Féin seemed to be willing to implement welfare reform in Northern Ireland whilst fighting austerity in the Republic of Ireland. That failure to govern or take difficult decisions in Northern Ireland will affect every one of our citizens. Have no doubt of it. <BR /> <BR />This morning, on Radio Ulster, I heard Paul Terrington, the current head of the Institute of Directors, indicate that stability in the Administration is crucial for economic growth in Northern Ireland. He went on to say that the single issue of stability, the continuation of the devolution process around corporation tax and all those things are in a vacuum at the minute. We do not have political stability to sell ourselves elsewhere or bring in new investment and we do not recognise the realities of financing our local Administration.”
“<BR /> <BR />Billions of pounds of subventions are already coming to Northern Ireland and, on average, our citizens are in receipt of thousands of pounds more than those in other regions of the United Kingdom. Yes, there is some argument over whether it is £7 billion, £8 billion or £10 billion, but the reality is that our citizens are receiving considerably more funds from public sources than those in any other part of the United Kingdom. Sinn Féin fails to acknowledge that reality. It seems to think that extra welfare costs will be paid for from the money tree, and it seems to wish to emulate the Greek form of economics and bring that to the Northern Ireland economy and government. I do not want such failure.”
“but then Sinn Féin flip-flopped, when the Southern command wagged the Northern tail. <BR /> <BR />One of the worst aspects of this flip-flopping is the failure to govern: the failure to lead and the failure to take responsibility, with the knock-on adverse effects that will fall on the people of Northern Ireland. Then again, should we really be surprised, considering that this is the party that claims that it stands against cuts, four years after implementing consecutive cuts? The Belfast Agreement, approved by the people of Northern Ireland, accepted Northern Ireland's position in the United Kingdom. This means that we receive UK welfare benefits and, if any changes are proposed, we must pay for them out of our remaining block grant.”
“It is so good that Sinn Féin is now wholly opposed to it. Sam McBride quoted Martin McGuinness as having told the Sinn Féin ard-fheis:”
“Sinn Féin has supported many amendments and approved the details of the Bill that are presented today for final approval. In fact, on the specific issue of contributory employment and support allowance (ESA), an issue on which Sinn Féin now professes opposition, this is what Mickey Brady said on 10 February:”
“It was one of the last chances to find out whether there was room for negotiation. Remarkably, the Sinn Féin representatives told us at the meeting that they had costed proposals that would guarantee protections for existing and future claimants and that it would be done broadly within the spending envelope already agreed in the Stormont House Agreement. We did not believe them, but we were prepared to, at least, consider it. Surprisingly, four days later, and even in the course of this debate, we have heard nothing. We are still waiting for a copy of those proposals. Sinn Féin was being irresponsible once more, even until the last minute. <BR /> <BR />It was with bemusement that I learnt that a petition of concern had been placed against the Final Stage of the Welfare Reform Bill in March and has been repeated again for today's debate.”
“<BR /> <BR />Over the years, it will be increasingly difficult and, indeed, almost impossible to calculate the difference between the new system and the old system. That is where the uncosted, Gerry Adams, Sinn Féin, Southern-campaign directive guaranteeing protection against all future welfare changes unravels. It is undeliverable, uncosted and irresponsible. It is so sad that we have major parties in Northern Ireland that are prepared to run with the line that there will be no change to the welfare system in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />I want to put on public record that, on Friday morning, the Ulster Unionist Party met some Sinn Féin representatives in Stormont Castle.”
“So, how is Northern Ireland going to run the current social security system with its rules and regulations? What is it going to cost us to maintain that large, burdensome computer system so that we can have the luxury of having different social security rules and regulations here? I have not heard any costs of that. I am not saying that it is going to cost £1 billion, but the administrative burden will cost hundreds of millions of pounds on an annual basis. So, on top of all the other voids, another cost is coming in. The alternative suggested by the official was that we operate a paper system for our social security in Northern Ireland, which, of course, may have even higher administrative costs. Certainly, that is not a practical option.”
“If there is a failure again, in a few months' time, and if there is stalemate, I do not think the United Kingdom Government could sit around while such drastic cuts would be affecting the people of Northern Ireland, in terms of not only our health service but a wide range of public services. <BR /> <BR />In addition, if the Bill is rejected, the Northern Ireland social security administrative burden will grow and grow and grow. Let me explain. In Great Britain, there is a clear commitment to move to the new computer system. Recently, an official indicated to the Social Development Committee that the ageing UK current social security system cost £1 billion a year to maintain and run. When, eventually, everything transfers to the new system, that system will no longer be required.”
“<BR /> <BR />The question to Sinn Féin, today, is very clear: vote for the Bill with all of its local amendments and additional safeguards, or reject it and wait a few months for Westminster to implement it for them, with, potentially, no additional protection. If the Assembly survives — I say, "if" — which I think would be highly unlikely, is Sinn Féin prepared to watch these powers and all other powers being handed back to Westminster? There may, of course, be an Assembly election, but, if there is, we will come back to face the same problems, and the same issues will arise.”
“If the Executive are not prepared to do that, we know that there are mechanisms within the legislation that will pass that responsibility to senior civil servants who will set the Budget at 95% of last year's Budget. <BR /> <BR />Take the health service. Failure to implement welfare reform and finalise the Budget could mean an 8% reduction in the health budget — not an increase to deal with those increasing pressures, such as the growing waiting lists and the delays at our accident and emergency centres. There is a huge responsibility on everyone who is thinking of opposing the Bill to explain where the £600 million gap in our Budget comes from. How is that going to be filled? Or, how are we going to avoid the inevitable crash, as I see it, when civil servants will be forced to take such drastic decisions?”
“That was part of the deal. <BR /> <BR />What would be the implications of all that and other aspects for the Assembly's Budget, which is with our Finance Minister and is due to be brought before the Executive and ultimately the Assembly to finalise it? Well, to balance the Budget, further cuts would have to be announced. I understand reliably that that figure is in the order of £600 million. The community and voluntary sector has already suffered compulsory redundancies. There is no doubt that if the Budget problem deepens even further if the Bill is not approved, there will be thousands of compulsory redundancies, instead of voluntary redundancies, across the public sector. How else do you balance the Budget? There has to be a balancing of the Budget.”
“We were afforded borrowing last year to avert further drastic in-year cuts. Let us remember that, last year, there were in-year cuts of 4·4% across many Departments and the overall Budget to claw back deficits that were running up. The longer we take to make decisions and the longer we avoid financial decisions, the worse will be the long-term implications. There is poorer and poorer planning around where those cuts can be made, and they are implemented in a much speedier fashion than would otherwise be the case. I understand that, if we do not approve the Bill, the borrowing to cover the £100 million from last year will be required in this year's Budget, and, of course, the hundreds of millions of pounds that were offered to us to pay for a voluntary redundancy scheme will no longer be available. They will not be on the table.”
“Fines have been indicated — essentially clawbacks of our deviation to date — of £14 million, then £87 million and then some £114 million this year. The figure is projected to reach £250 million next year, and I understand that the First Minister has said that it could even be £500 million the following year. This is what is coming down the line if we do not implement change. Politics is supposed to be the art of the possible. That means that we all have a responsibility to examine not only the pluses and the minuses of this Bill but the implications that will flow from the Bill not being approved. <BR /> <BR />In addition to the welfare clawback or fines, if this Bill is not approved the offer of borrowing will not be there. Remember that, because of delays last year, there was an additional £100 million deficit.”
“The Westminster Government simply take that money off our block grant. That is what a penalty is: we choose to differ, and therefore we pay. How can we argue to other parts of the United Kingdom that that is unfair? How can we argue that to this Government, whose members represent areas where they have a different benefits system? Why should they permit us to introduce a more generous benefits system to Northern Ireland and not pay for it? That is an argument that some would wish to win by going back to negotiations. However, I am firm in the belief that that would go nowhere. Experience of the past three years shows that that is the case. <BR /> <BR />If we choose to deviate from the welfare system that applies elsewhere in the United Kingdom, we will have to pay for it from our block grant. That is the political and economic reality.”
“We do have choices. If this Bill is not approved, we will be the only part of the UK using the old benefits system. There will be less funds in many other public areas. Let us be clear that there is no money tree. There is no going back asking for more money. We have been there lots of times over the past three years. There were crunch talks around Christmas last year, and we got an offer of a settlement at that stage. If we do not approve this Bill, there will be even less money for health, less money for education and less money for Departments and other publicly funded bodies. <BR /> <BR />If this Bill is approved, the potential of further penalties and unplanned departmental cuts will be averted. Penalties were discussed earlier. Penalties come simply when we decide to deviate from the welfare system.”
“We had a very complicated system that was very costly to administer, and there was a lack of transparency as to whether individuals would be better off in work. Benefit traps are preventing our constituents from working to help themselves and their families.”
“I also recall Iain Duncan Smith, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, highlighting that, with the old GB benefits system, it took almost an hour for an experienced welfare supervisor, using sophisticated computers, to establish whether someone would be better or worse off if they worked a few hours more.”
“This has been built into the 2015-16 Budget. <BR /> <BR />The aim of the Bill is to simplify benefits, improve work incentives and reduce administrative costs. The changes are occurring against a background of the UK continuing to increase its cumulative deficit. Labour, the Lib Dems and the Conservatives have all committed to Budget break-even; they disagree only over how fast they each would bring it into balance. The reality of the recent UK elections is that there is no going back. I think that Labour is even reviewing the position that it took.”