Peter Weir
Strangford · Ulster Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“Funding was secured for that scheme, and we have been able to take further steps on it. As highlighted by my colleague Diane Dodds, we have seen my successor, the current Minister, be able to implement it at the beginning of September 2021 and funding be made available for it.”
“One of the great fears — I saw it particularly, as Education Minister, from the point of view of children and the domestic setting between partners — was what was going to happen in families when the doors closed and the locks went on. What was happening behind closed doors?”
“There is another significant element of the Bill. I have spoken about it in the Chamber on a couple of occasions. There is always a slight danger that we, as legislators, see legislation as being the end of a process and think that we can pack it away, put it on the shelf and forget about the problem because it has been solved.”
“I welcome the passage of the Bill's Final Stage and commend all the campaigners who have pressed so hard for it and the Bill sponsor. For Pat Catney, hearing some of the tributes must be like hearing eulogies at your funeral, without having to go through the indignity of dying, which is always a double advantage.”
“As highlighted by a number of Members, the impact of period poverty, though not confined to it, has been particularly acute in young women's education. We know that the impact can lead to the missing of education and constraints within education, and that it does so in a disproportionate way.”
“I support the Bill's Final Stage, and I commend the Bill's sponsor for introducing it. I thank the Minister and the Department for the positive attitude that they have taken towards it.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,831 lines we hold for Peter Weir, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 77.
“I wish to address a range of amendments in group 1. A lot can be said about the Bill. A lot was said at Second Stage, and all of us stand by the remarks that we made at that point. It strikes me that, as we evaluate the benefit of the amendments and, indeed, the original text of the Bill, there are two overriding considerations that should guide our opinions. We are being asked to look at various amendments at Consideration Stage today, including those that clearly express opposition to the full content of a particular clause, as moved, on a number of occasions, by the Minister and Mr Allister. <BR /> <BR />The first of the two overriding considerations is to what extent the Bill addresses the strategic position of education.”
“My second point is on the filtration systems. Even the professor who is in charge of doing the tests on those systems has said that there is no guarantee that in the real world they will deliver what they are supposed to deliver and that their use needs to be evidence-based. SAGE has indicated that such systems are of very limited benefit and are not a substitute for ventilation; the windows would have to be open throughout. It seems that some Members regard themselves as being more sage than SAGE itself.”
“<BR /> <BR />For instance, guidance did not change over the Christmas period because the health guidance did not change. It seems that there are some in the House who see themselves as amateur virologists and seem to be suggesting that they know better than the Department of Health or the Chief Medical Officer. Would they prefer that the Minister went on a solo run regarding the advice that is being given? <BR /> <BR />I mentioned keeping in step with what the Health Department has asked for. I wish that some of the parties here had done likewise. Mention was made of the rush to close schools at the start of the pandemic. At that time, two of the parties in the Chamber voted to close schools when that was opposed by the Chief Medical Officer and the Department of Health.”
“As political stunts go, this is very much a case of plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Throughout the pandemic, planning has gone on in the Department of Education, whether it was during my time as Minister or since the current Minister came into post. That has been done in step with the advice given by the Public Health Agency and the Health Department. At times, that has meant that we have been frustrated in trying to get to where we want to be in education, and sometimes it has taken us in a direction that, ideally, from a purely educational point of view, we did not want to go. Also, there have been situations in which changes have had to be made. However, every step along the way has been taken in step with what the Department of Health has advised.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He has highlighted the particular issue about the different positions within hospitality. Does he agree that that will create an added danger that a lot of people entering hospitality would have a false sense of security and feel that they were completely safe within that environment, which, in and of itself, creates a greater risk of the spread of COVID-19?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. At the start of his remarks, the Member rightly highlighted the pressures on businesses. Part of the issue is weighing up the costs and the potential damage to businesses, and he talked about the extent to which businesses have had to try to soldier on over the last number of months. One of the major problems that we are facing now is that a lot of the tools that were available at earlier stages of the pandemic through the largesse that came from the Exchequer nationally, which was then distributed to us, particularly the furlough scheme, are no longer available to the Executive. That makes it increasingly difficult to be able to respond and give protection to businesses.”
“At this critical time, particularly with the additional risk from the omicron variant, and we do not know precisely how that will play out, we should build consensus where we can, not on the basis of division but on what are, potentially, ineffective interventions that, on an evidential basis, appear to be unproven. We must concentrate all our efforts, where we can, on the key interventions that will make the difference in booster numbers and the actions we can take within our hospital system. <BR /> <BR />That is the real advantage. That is why we need to pause today and use that opportunity to ensure that we have evidence and can, therefore, move ahead on the basis of what actually makes effective intervention. I am sure that that is something we all share, irrespective of our difference of views.”
“In many ways, from the point of view of those who are gaining access to premises, I am not disputing that. My concern is that it will be viewed by many who are entering a licensed premises, a cinema, a theatre or a nightclub as their having a golden ticket and that, once they enter, because of those processes, they are effectively insulated from COVID. Sadly, we know that that is not the case. There is a danger that, where certification has been brought in, it breeds a sense of complacency amongst those who go into establishments and, indeed, that it creates a feeling, from a behavioural point of view, of a certain amount of carte blanche once people are in. There is therefore a level of danger there.”
“It is also the case, however, that there are potential downsides, even from the vaccination programme and the spread of the disease. What are those? First, the Imperial College London report, which Mr Frew quoted from earlier, indicated that vaccine hesitancy has created some reaction amongst some of those who have not been vaccinated to be stubbornly opposed to it. There is no reason to believe that that stance will not be shared in Northern Ireland, where thranness is often a well-credited virtue. Undoubtedly, although the measure will lead to some people getting the vaccine, others will be more and more determined not to get it. <BR /> <BR />That is not my principal concern, however, about the behavioural aspect. Mention has been made of the fact that, if we have some form of check, the environment will be safer.”
“If that has been produced, let it be published, in order for it to show us what the impact is compared with the potential benefits. <BR /> <BR />There is also the issue of efficacy and evidence. There is a lack of direct evidence as to what the impact of the regulation will be. The one bit of evidence that we have is that, where this has happened — in the Republic of Ireland or Scotland, for example — case numbers have further risen. If we are to drill down and have effective data, simply to say, "We believe that the situation would have been even worse had this measure not been in place" does not strike me as being a particularly strong argument or one that is data-driven. <BR /> <BR />It is undoubtedly the case that, logically, the level of efficacy will lead to some additional people being vaccinated. I do not dispute that.”
“<BR /> <BR />We also know that it is undoubtedly the case, either from the information coming from international experience or from what has been said here, that there is clear evidence to show that there will be a loss of trade and the double whammy of additional costs and lost income. We have seen that in the figures that have been quoted from Quebec, where there has been a 40% reduction. There has been a relatively unified voice from Hospitality Ulster, which has given that information, and the FSB. I do not intend to repeat the detail of that, as Mr Frew already read it into the record. On proportionality, however, my question is this: if we are to look at what the impact is on wider society, where is the economic cost-benefit analysis?”
“Again, there is the issue of proportionality. When we talk about impact, it seems that there is an understandable concern, which has, at times, been expressed by the hospitality sector, that every time that action needs to be taken, that sector is at the front of the queue. There is no doubt that, given the lack of information about what the impact would be on the R number or on the number of cases, there is a disproportionate level of impact on the hospitality sector. That will lead to additional costs and perhaps to its having to try to find people who can service the front desk or the front door. Whether that is 19 doors or one door, that will create a level of financial burden and, indeed, may create simple practical difficulties.”
“<BR /> <BR />Mention was made that, whatever the implication, the impact of certification may well be minimal. We need to focus on where we can get the greatest level of delivery.”
“That is fair enough in and of itself, but it is also crucial that we do not miss the other part of the equation, which is supply and availability. COVID in and of itself has a public health impact when it comes to deaths, but there clearly is another complication when it comes to hospitalisations, given that it denies hospital beds to people who come in with other conditions. While some work has been done on increasing the supply of beds in our hospital system, we need to ratchet up our focus on how we do that and how we look at more flexible workforce planning to ensure that we have the staff to do that. Critically, the slow discharge of patients has been a major problem, and, therefore, we need to ensure that action is taken on the social care side of things. Those critical issues need to be focused on.”
“I will give way in a moment. I am conscious that a number of Members want to speak. <BR /> <BR />I do not necessarily share the Member's position. I have taken the vaccine. I do not have the scientific data to show it, but I suspect that, when it comes to actual numbers, the Member's rationale is not one that is a major driver for the 9%. Until we have done the scoping work and we start applying the lessons of that, we cannot say that actions will be taken. <BR /> <BR />I think that the Minister was looking to come in, but he has now withdrawn the point that he wanted to make. <BR /> <BR />There is a third bit that we need to focus on. There is a constant and understandable focus on hospitalisations. If we talk about the demand side, it is about keeping the numbers down and preventing people getting to the point of hospital.”
“That is part of the focus that we should have —”
“We know that 9% or 10% of people have not received the vaccination. My guess is that, in many of those cases and particularly among young people, there is a belief that it will have little direct impact on them and that it is an issue of not bothering to get the vaccine. A small minority takes particular objection for a range of reasons, whether they believe certain conspiracy theories or have particular principles. A very small percentage will simply refuse to take the vaccine. Therefore, the question is this: if we have perhaps 100,000-plus adults or a little more who have not received the vaccination, what are we doing directly to make that as easy as possible? While various methods have been used, such as walk-in clinics and things of that nature, we need a bit more thinking outside the box about how we can drive that.”
“Perhaps it comes back to the point — I cannot remember who raised it initially; it might have been the Member — about a lack of communication. If detailed work of that nature has been done and there is knowledge about that, it does not appear to have been shared with the wider system.”
“We can all engage in point-scoring across the Chamber and blame the communication of one statement or another, but have we really drilled down into the 9% or 10% to see how we can reduce it?”
“I am not talking out of class, but I remember an Executive meeting a while ago at which either the Chief Scientific Adviser or the Chief Medical Officer — I cannot remember which — was looking at modelling. At that time, he talked about 80% being the best that could be achieved and set out the implications of doing so. We have now reached 91%. <BR /> <BR />One of my concerns is that we have spent a lot of time concentrating on certain measures. For instance, today it has been on COVID certificates. However, there has not been the same amount of work done — if there has, I stand to be corrected — on a clinical and research-based assessment of why that 9% has not taken up the vaccine.”
“If that can be done, it must be done for the benefit of our citizens. <BR /> <BR />The JCVI was possibly a little slow off the mark. I was one of the first to call for the United Kingdom to follow the Republic of Ireland — this should not be ideological — and give parents the option for their children to receive the vaccination. That was eventually done, which was important. <BR /> <BR />Looking at where we are with regard to the boosters and initial doses, much has been made in the debate about vaccine hesitancy. Possibly 9%of people have not as yet received the double vaccination, and we do not know precisely how the figures will work out for the booster. In many ways, our level of vaccination in this country has massively exceeded the initial expectation.”
“I appreciate the point that is being made. One of the problems with this — I will come onto this later on the evidential side of things — is a lack of driven data. It seems that one of the popular themes of the debate has been that there is a range of things that we need to do and this is one item in our armour. However, if we have no way of gauging whether the piece of armour is in any way protective of society or the level of protection that it offers, how can we judge the actions that we take? It is about focus. <BR /> <BR />I mentioned the booster jabs. If there is a commitment to having such an acceleration that we match the targets in other parts of the United Kingdom, I welcome that. It is critical that we match those targets so that the booster can be offered to all by the end of December.”
“I will in a moment. <BR /> <BR />The figures for the first week in December are lower than they were a month earlier, which should concern us. Those are the latest figures, which were provided on 8 December in answer to a question for written answer.”
“As a society in Northern Ireland, we have to admit that we have been behind the curve with the booster programme. We have been slower than other parts of the United Kingdom. Again, that is not an attempt to have a go at any particular individual or group; it is a fact. We were slow in September. From the figures that I have received, the number of people who received the booster in the first couple of weeks that it was available was in double figures. While there has been a ratcheting up of the process, one thing that concerns me is the number of booster jabs that were given in the first week in November and compare it with the number that were given in the first week in December.”
“I indicated earlier that the key focus has to be on the speed of delivery and the numbers who can get the booster jab.”
“However, economic considerations are a key driver in public health considerations. We know that, if we create the conditions that cause major economic damage and jobs are lost and poverty is driven in our society, while it may not lead to someone appearing immediately at the front desk of a hospital, in the long run, creating poverty and unemployment leads to much poorer public health outcomes and to deaths. Therefore, it is important that we protect both lives and livelihoods. When making that judgement, any intervention has to be focused, proportionate, effective and evidence-based. Today, the problem that we face with COVID certification is that, when it is measured against that threshold and yardstick, the policy falls short. <BR /> <BR />Let me take each of those aspects in turn.”
“I spoke in the Chamber, a while ago, about not doing as I do but doing as I tell people to do. However, last week, I received my booster vaccination. I encourage people to get the booster vaccination, not just for their sake but, as Mr Dickson pointed out, because of the impact that it has on others. <BR /> <BR />In taking that reasonable and responsible approach to our interventions, we need to ensure that it is weighed against a number of criteria. We need to look at whether any actions that we take are for the overall public benefit and are weighed against the full implications for public health. That is not simply about the indicators for purely COVID; it is about the wider public health implications. There has sometimes been a tendency for some to pitch economic considerations against health considerations.”
“It is important that there is maximum opportunity for debate on this most critical of subjects. <BR /> <BR />It is about trying to be pragmatic and sensible in the approach. We know that the biggest single intervention to deal with the threat that COVID poses — still poses and has posed — is the vaccination programme, and particularly ensuring that we have maximum uptake of the booster vaccination with the maximum speed. We know that that is particularly important, as has been highlighted. We are still developing a certain level of knowledge about the omicron variant. One of the early indications seems to be that, while someone who is double vaccinated has a certain level of protection, that protection appears to be considerably boosted when a third dose is given.”
“It is not appropriate or in the spirit of the debate to personalise the matter at any stage. I am not throwing out accusations against any individual. I am indicating that something was able to be done in all the other jurisdictions, but it is disappointing that our processes and systems were not able to do that in the Assembly for Northern Ireland. I welcome the ruling of the Deputy Speaker. I know that he has encouraged us towards brevity, which is often the soul of wit, and that can be somewhat lacking in the Chamber. It is also important that every Member be given the opportunity to fully express their position. I welcome the ruling that should we not reach a point at which the debate can be concluded by a particular time, that it is not a question of a guillotine coming down.”
“However, it is the case that in Wales, Scotland and Westminster, there was the opportunity for their respective Parliaments to give their direct views before regulations took effect. It is disappointing that, in effect, we are doing this a couple of weeks after the initial proposals were brought forward and, indeed, before —. I think that the Minister is looking to intervene. I will give way.”
“At the outset, I join with other Members who have thanked front-line staff who have worked throughout the pandemic, such as health and social care workers. From personal experience over the past few months, I know the dedicated work that those professionals are doing. Whatever our views are on the particular subject of the debate, I think that we all join in sending out that unified voice of support to those people. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. Again, without labouring the point that others have made, it is somewhat disappointing that we are left, to some extent, with those regulations being effectively a fait accompli. Having been in Government, I know that, at times, Departments need to move quickly. That is particularly true in dealing with the pandemic.”
“Will the Finance Minister clarify whether, apart from his party colleagues and the Health Minister, any other Minister has signalled support for the content of the Budget as opposed to simply supporting it going out to consultation?”
“<BR /> <BR />Circumstances are such that, from the Committee point of view, this has come relatively late in the day, and we have seen this only recently. However, it is important that the Assembly grasps this with both hands and supports the LCM and also that those in the research and innovation sectors take the full opportunities that are made available through ARIA. I therefore support the LCM today. Great opportunities lie ahead.”
“Alongside the universities and research teams, there is collaboration with Departments, government agencies and other public bodies such as councils. The Committee, for instance, visited Queen's University at the end of the summer to test that out. There is also the private sector, and reaching collaboration with that sector, particularly where there are customers for the research, will be critical to the success of this. <BR /> <BR />A very bold and welcome step is being taken across the UK, and it is important that Northern Ireland is at the forefront of that. It is important that we are not simply getting our share but are applying the excellent work that is happening in Northern Ireland to that innovative research.”
“There is, at least, the certainty of 10 years, and I suspect that it will go beyond that. That will mean that, if projects are to succeed, they need not be successful overnight but can have the long period of work and bedding in required. That flexibility is important, running alongside existing research. <BR /> <BR />Finally, whereas in an operatic sense an aria is the song of a single distinctive voice, the focus in ARIA is collaboration. We know of the excellent work that is happening in universities, particularly in Northern Ireland. We have Queen's University, Ulster University and the Open University. ARIA will be particularly successful where there is cross-fertilisation. We have seen that in economic development in Northern Ireland.”
“In this context, while not challenging existing research, there can be the opportunity for blue-sky thinking, and that is to be welcomed. It has complementarity. <BR /> <BR />Secondly, in the structures that have been put in place, it has operational independence in the leadership provided, which will not be directed by government but will draw on expertise. Individual researchers and institutions will have independence. That is critical, if we are looking to see technological development happen in the best possible way. <BR /> <BR />Thirdly, as indicated, it will have financial flexibility. One of the constraints on research is that a project gets funding for a relatively short period, and it has to hit goals quickly. However, ARIA can lead to investment on a much longer-term basis.”
“<BR /> <BR />ARIA has been widely welcomed by the stakeholders who will be contributing to it. It is something over and above what takes place at present. As indicated by the Minister and the Chair, there is a Government commitment, lasting at least 10 years, of £800 million. It is important that that not only is that used for that additional research and innovation, but that it gives longer-term certainty to things and provides opportunities. As the Minister said, it is a high-risk, high-reward enterprise. That means that there will be a range of projects that will not succeed or get to the next stage. However, that is a good thing. Particularly in Northern Ireland but across the UK as a whole, people complain that the Government tend to take too much of a risk-averse approach.”
“First, the structures put in place by ARIA are largely complementary to the funding model that is already in place for research and development. In the UK, we have a rich tradition of innovative research. One looks, locally, to pioneers such as Harry Ferguson or Frank Pantridge to note the contribution made in Northern Ireland. In university research, the UK very much punches above its weight. It has approximately 1% — indeed, it is probably less than that — of the overall global population, yet represents about 4% of the researchers in the university context. The UK contribution to papers cited for international comparison is about 14%. Therefore, it is important that we have a model that does not diminish what is already happening but adds to it.”
“I rise to sing a song of praise for the ARIA Bill and the LCM. It is a very important LCM, and its very innovative approach is to be welcomed. <BR /> <BR />There is a slight irony that, while we are talking about research and innovation, the model that we are using is a tried and trusted model that has been used elsewhere. As the Minister noted, there have been a range of developments via its US counterpart, albeit it took me a little bit by surprise, because I thought that it was Al Gore who claimed to have invented the internet, rather than the American counterpart. <BR /> <BR />I will highlight, very briefly, four aspects that I think are very beneficial.”
“I believe, personally and on a point of principle, that hunting of that nature is abhorrent to society. Consequently, I support the Bill's passing its Second Reading.”
“There are other, better, less cruel ways of maintaining biodiversity and conservation. The Bill, if it is successful today, will undergo scrutiny. I appreciate the point that was made earlier about the pressures that are on the Committee, but many Committees are having to deal with a large number of Bills. If that is truly an important consideration, quite a number of private Members' Bills will be dropped accordingly. Indeed, as the party opposite said, a number of the private Members' Bills emanate from it. There therefore has to be consistency of approach. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the proposal brought forward. If the Bill is successful, it will be subject to a level of scrutiny, and that is the point. There is a key challenge for what we, as a society and as an Assembly, consider to be acceptable.”
“That is clear evidence. It stands to reason that it is not a particularly efficient way of doing it. At Second Stage, we are asked to deal with the principles of the Bill. I respectfully disagree with some others in the House, in that, to my mind, the key principle is that hunting with dogs remains a cruel, inefficient pursuit. As a society, we have to make a decision on what is and is not acceptable when it comes to animal welfare and animal cruelty. We must do that from a point of principle, in the same way that, down the years, various other activities that were at one stage accepted in our society have now been banned. Perhaps the most recent one here was hare coursing 11 years ago, but there has been a range of other activities banned. <BR /> <BR />It is not the mark of a civilised society to embrace hunting with dogs.”
“In terms of the frequency of hunts, it is quite often the case that a good huntsman does not catch the hare; it is all about the chase. Getting a large number of horses and hounds to chase one fox does not appear to be a particularly efficient means of doing things.”
“One of the contradictions in what is argued by those who oppose the Bill today is this: when it comes to methods of controlling the animal population to ensure that such conservation takes place, hunting with dogs is undoubtedly one of the least efficient.”
“I am sure that some will want the legislation to be widened much more, but that is not what is in the Bill. If someone were to seek much greater widening of the Bill, the House will have the common sense and the opportunity to look at that. I, for one, do not believe that we should look to restrict other activities, be they wider aspects of fishing, shooting etc — I support the right to take part in country sports — and that is not in the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Those of us who support the Bill are not in some sentimental haze of ignorance. The proposed Bill reflects that we accept that it is not a question of simply being sentimental about everything in the countryside and that there is a need for pest control, protection of livestock and methodology that can help biodiversity and conservation.”
“The House will have the opportunity to make changes to the Bill. I question whether a majority in the House will vote for it to pass its Second Reading. There would, however, be a very clear majority for those sorts of changes. <BR /> <BR />The Member asked which Mr Blair we should listen to. Earlier, a Member quoted Tony Blair as one of the apparent advocates of concerns about the position in England. I think that I am correct in saying that he had concerns about the legal position. I would be a little bit worried that bringing in Tony Blair as an advocate in defence of a particular position makes the case for the other side. Some of us have had that experience. <BR /> <BR />One of the other arguments is that this is the thin end of the wedge.”
“I am trying to get through this, but I will give way briefly.”
“I welcome that clarification. If the Bill reaches Consideration Stage, that would be the type of amendment that those of us who support the Bill would like to see. If the Bill sponsor does not table such an amendment, others will.”
“I do not know whether the Bill sponsor wants to comment at this stage or will do so in his winding-up speech.”
“<BR /> <BR />One of the issues raised — I address this comment particularly to the Bill sponsor — was that mentioned by Mr McGlone on the set of circumstances in clause 6. That has been indicated fairly consistently in correspondence from opponents to the Bill, drawing attention to those who, for example, might be out walking their dog when the dog goes off its leash and gets involved in an activity where a mammal is being chased, and asking whether that would criminalise the people concerned. I do not believe that that is the Bill's intention or is implied by its wording. If that is a concern, however, it is important that there is clarification. I ask the Bill sponsor whether, if the Bill reaches Consideration Stage, he would be willing to support amendments to tie it in with an intention to hunt or wilful hunting.”