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 65 of 77.
“In those circumstances, it would be extremely unlucky for both pupils.”
“Most teachers, to be fair, will have the common sense to see the cowering, intimidated Pupil O'Dowd and recognise that as bullying. However, I do not want the guidance, whatever it is, to be misinterpreted and an act of bullying unnecessarily excluded. That is my concern. I fail to see what the reference in the amendment adds to the definition, but I can see where, in some cases of misinterpretation, it may exclude something. I hope that the Member will not seek to bully or intimidate us as she moves on with that. With that explanation, Mr Speaker —”
“I will give you an example that occurs to me. It strikes me that, without that, there is no incident of bullying that is excluded. There is at least a danger that that would be the case. An imbalance of power, to some extent, could be in a situation with a group of young people and it may well be that, physically, the person doing the bullying is a lot smaller than the person being bullied. A teacher looking at that may take the view that the meek but larger pupil — we will call him "Pupil O'Dowd" — is being grossly intimidated by a smaller but much fiercer pupil — we will call her "Pupil Overend". In those circumstances, a teacher may say, "I see clearly where I believe there to be bullying". However, is there an imbalance of power where a larger pupil is bullied by a smaller pupil? I am not sure that ticks the box.”
“What I mean by that is that we have a clear definition of bullying, and this would add an additional limb to that definition to show that there was an imbalance of power. That may well be implicit in all cases of bullying. However, what would concern me are the situations in which some level of assessment that either a teacher or a member of staff is making. If they felt a little bit unsure about that additional limb, we may see some incidents of bullying that do not get recorded because there is a feeling that they have not jumped that extra hurdle. So, to that extent, I do not believe that amendment No 2 adds anything to the Bill, and it runs a danger, in some cases, of excluding cases where there is bullying. So, from that point of view, while I am happy with the other amendments, the DUP will be opposing amendment No 2.”
“However, we do not know what situation we are going to be in in a few years from now, and, if any amendment were required to clause 3, without amendment No 13, it would have to be done purely by way of primary legislation. We believe that there needs to be some level of adjustment to give the option of subordinate legislation subject to negative resolution. It gives that little bit of flexibility, and seems to be a relatively sensible amendment. <BR /> <BR />Finally, I turn to amendment No 2. I have some sympathy for the motivation behind the amendment, and it is something that has been included in a number of other jurisdictions. However, I have concerns about it, both as to whether it is necessary and whether, from a practical point of view, it might be slightly counterproductive.”
“The additional information may well be useful, and it is something that, I think, does not place any massive additional burden on schools. From that point of view, my party is happy to support amendment No 11. <BR /> <BR />I will return to amendment No 2 in a moment. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 12, which is consequential to amendment No 14, is a better-drafted version of the requirements under clause 3 in covering all situations. I appreciate that the Minister expressed the view that amendment No 13 is not particularly necessary. However, as a party, we support the amendment. When this matter was looked at, by admission, the list was not got right initially and had to be corrected slightly. We are in a moving situation. It may well be that what is in amendment No 12 covers the situation at the moment adequately.”
“Clearly, amendment No 7 will be put and, if, as I assume, the House is able to unite behind it, it will render amendment No 8 null and void. Again, we are giving power to governors to look at cyberbullying without going the further step of imposing a particular duty on them. <BR /> <BR />We support the Committee's amendment No 6, which, again, has a degree of cross-party consensus, to ensure that this is not something that is done as a one-off exercise and simply left to drift into the ether, but places an onus on the boards of governors to do this at intervals of no more than four years. <BR /> <BR />With amendment No 11, from the DUP perspective, there were issues raised in trying to ensure that boards of governors and schools, when recording these incidents, are not overburdened. However, amendment No 11 seems modest enough.”
“It was raised with me on a number of occasions that the word "includes" could, by its definition, go beyond simply repeated bullying. I think that to have a specific reference in the Bill will give reassurance that very serious incidents will be taken seriously. <BR /> <BR />Similarly, I think that we find favour with amendment Nos 5 and 10, which have been mentioned, and which cover the shared education position. Similarly, with the technical amendment Nos 3, 4 and 9 proposed by the Minister, there is no particular problem. <BR /> <BR />I should also indicate that, with amendment Nos 7 and 8, we initially brought forward amendment No 8. It is virtually, word-for-word, what is in amendment No 7. From that point of view, therefore, we are happy with either amendment.”
“This, I believe, will be flexible enough to deal with the new challenges from things like cyberbullying and robust enough to give children the confidence to know that, when they are being bullied at school, something really will be done about it. <BR /> <BR />Now, turning briefly, because I do not want to reiterate all of that, to the position from a DUP perspective. I think that, as a party, we are happy with all the ministerial amendments and, indeed, all the Committee amendments. <BR /> <BR />Again, I do not want to go into a great deal of detail. When the issue in amendment No 1 was raised by the Committee, the Minister brought forward an amendment that encapsulated an almost identical position to that of the Committee, and I think it is quite sensible.”
“I also suspect that the Committee would have no problem in supporting the technical drafting amendment Nos 3, 4 and 9. <BR /> <BR />Even if we have a couple of Divisions today, and we shall see how that turns out, it is fair to characterise the Committee Stage of the Bill and the interaction with the Department and the Minister as positive and cooperative. On behalf of the Committee, I wish to commend the Minister and his officials for the progress achieved to date on this Bill and the legislative programme generally. <BR /> <BR />At Second Stage, I described the Bill as a good beginning. I think that an amended Bill will be exactly that – a good beginning for the development of a consistent anti-bullying culture for all our schools.”
“Indeed, as we are in the process of passing the Shared Education Bill, the frequency of children being at another school for some form of shared activity is likely to increase. The Bill, as drafted, would have placed no obligation on the pupil’s home school to take action or keep a record. The Committee advised the Department of this, and I am pleased to note that ministerial amendment Nos 5 and 9 appear to be designed to deal with exactly this problem. The Committee has not taken a formal position on this. I imagine, however, that Members would be happy to support these sensible provisions, which oblige the home school to address bullying perpetrated in another school by one of its pupils, although I also note the comments of the Minister that, where this is happening in one school, a degree of cooperation is needed between the schools.”
“In any event, the Department has advised us that, whether the Bill passes or not, recent court decisions will oblige all schools to keep and retain better disciplinary and bullying incident records. It is hoped that the passage of this Bill, departmental guidance, review by the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI), and the anticipated extension of the scope of the Northern Ireland Public Service Ombudsman to include schools will lead to more consistent record-keeping by all schools. <BR /> <BR />Finally, when the Committee was agreeing its report, a member asked an excellent question — it does occasionally happen at Committee. What happens if a pupil is attending another school, as part of the entitlement framework or a sharing activity, and engages in bullying activity at the other school?.”
“<BR /> <BR />During Second Stage, I made reference to concerns about the misuse of bullying records kept by schools and the development of the risk of unofficial bullying league tables. The Department has clarified that records will be held at school level and that usual data protection controls will be applied to personal information. I also understand that the Department will make use of related, aggregated statistics to inform anti-bullying policy development. <BR /> <BR />The Committee agrees that bullying is an important issue and requires robust and coherent responses from schools. Good record-keeping underpins this. I think that we all feel that, on balance, addressing the real problem of bullying is more important than the possibility of reputational damage to schools.”
“I think that there was some disagreement on how this should be done. Some wanted some limited changes; some wanted the list in the Bill to be removed and replaced with a regulation-making power; others – the majority – preferred amendment No 13. That is an order-making power that can amend the existing list of motivations. I note the ministerial amendment Nos 12 and 14, which would appear to closely align the motivations with section 75. I think that the majority of members felt that the nature of bullying is changing and that some flexibility will be needed if schools are to capture emerging trends. The majority of Committee members, therefore, felt that Amendment No 13 will allow this to happen.”
“A key part of the Bill is the requirement to keep records of bullying incidents. This appears to be an inescapable requirement for schools, following fairly recent legal proceedings. The Bill provides some necessary clarity, which the Department has assured us will be followed by guidance designed to limit the bureaucratic burden on school principals and boards of governors. I think that the Committee accepted this assurance and, therefore, did not put down a related amendment to further specify that, although we appreciate amendment No 11, which has been put down by some members of the Committee. <BR /> <BR />Clause 3 also requires schools to record the motivation or perceived motivation underpinning bullying. All members of the Committee agreed that the list of motivations required some improvement.”
“Clause 2 of the Bill requires the latter to devise anti-bullying measures and to consult on them with children and parents. Like many witnesses at Committee Stage, the Committee strongly supported this aspect of the legislation. To further strengthen this obligation, the Committee agreed to put down amendment No 6, which requires the process to happen within a typical period of office of a board of governors, namely once every four years as a minimum period.”
“Attractive though such a proposition might be, the Committee was a little bit worried that it might lead to legal challenges and other undetermined consequences for schools, and might even promote unwelcome changes to the relationship between schools and parents. Members also noted the long-awaited anti-cyberbullying guidance. We should not always see a single piece of legislation as the silver bullet that will lead to all solutions; there are, indeed, other areas coming forward. That guidance, produced by the Anti-Bullying Forum, and the e-safety guidance which is to be produced by the Safeguarding Board this year, are very important documents that will inform schools' responses to this relatively new form of bullying. <BR /> <BR />I mentioned the scope of responsibility of schools and their boards of governors.”
“The amendment, which is permissive rather than obligatory — we take on board what the Minister said about imposing additional duties — is, we believe, the best possible compromise between the different sides. <BR /> <BR />I draw the House's attention, as has the Minister, to ministerial amendment No 7. While the Minister has indicated that it is slightly better drafted than amendment No 8, it is virtually identical. That being the case, I think that members of the Committee will be content to support amendment No 7 in place of amendment No 8. <BR /> <BR />The Committee could have gone further. We considered an amendment that would have dramatically altered the scope of school responsibility in providing protections from bullying.”
“We listened to the concerns of schoolchildren and to the good-practice examples of anti-bullying provided by schools. It was on that basis that the Committee decided to put down amendment No 8, which is before us today. <BR /> <BR />Members felt that boards of governors need our support and the backing of legislation. Amendment No 8 is designed to empower them and give them the confidence to bring forward anti-cyberbullying measures. The Committee wanted schools not to feel constrained by a requirement to determine that the cyberbullying occurred during the school day, on the journey to and from school, or when under the lawful control of school staff.”
“Others made the argument that cyberbullying accounted for only a small fraction of all bullying incidents and was the subject of a disproportionate level of exposure by the news media. <BR /> <BR />The Committee felt that cyberbullying is an issue of significant importance that requires immediate action and support for schools. The Committee also noted the complexity presented by a wide-ranging legislative solution and the potential for conflict, for example between the rights of the victim and the rights of others to privacy. Additionally, members noted that other jurisdictions have yet fully to address these issues in legislation. That was the conundrum that the Committee faced. To help to resolve it, the Committee listened to the conflicting views of witnesses.”
“There were those, mainly teachers and professionals, who felt that the Bill had perhaps gone a little bit too far, and there were those, most of the other witnesses, who felt that it did not go far enough. The Committee noted extensive evidence from the school focus groups and other witnesses in respect of cyberbullying; that is to say bullying related to the use of electronic communication, social media or the Internet. These witnesses generally contended that this form of bullying could have a very substantive impact on its victims and was significantly under-reported in schools. It was asserted that the Bill did not go far enough to address this form of bullying and that cyberbullies could very easily evade the relevant provisions.”
“Members were quite exercised about this issue. The majority of members accepted the Department's assurances that the intention provisions would provide suitable protections for special schools and for children with SEN who were experiencing trauma. That said, the Committee felt strongly that the Department should consult widely with the SEN sector, including special schools and learning support units, in the development of appropriate guidance for teachers and principals regarding the treatment of children with SEN and those in exceptional circumstances. I hope that, in his response, the Minister will provide that assurance. <BR /> <BR />On the issue of cyberbullying, the Bill generated two types of commentary.”
“<BR /> <BR />I am also pleased by the departmental assurances that, before provisions are commenced, guidance is to be issued on addressing the treatment of one-off events; bullying that is targeted at section 75 groups; and bullying by omission. <BR /> <BR />At this stage, I should also mention the feedback from representatives of special schools. They expressed concerns about the application of these provisions to their sector and to mainstream schools with a high number of children with special educational needs (SEN). It was suggested that the Bill might wrongly classify as bullying unacceptable conduct that may be associated with behavioural conditions linked to SEN or to a significant non-school-related trauma.”
“It was therefore agreed that some space should be left in the Bill to allow schools the flexibility to include serious, unwanted behaviour that might not precisely conform to the definition as drafted. The Committee felt that the simplest and most effective way to do this was through the inclusion of the words "but is not limited to" in the definition. To be fair to the Department, while it initially raised concerns about that form of words, there was a common objective between the Department and the Committee on this, and I am pleased, therefore, that the Minister has incorporated this into his technical amendment — amendment No 1 to clause 1.”
“Others took issue with the apparent restriction of the definition to repeated acts. Still others wanted an explicit reference — this is taken forward in one of the other amendments — to the "imbalance of power" between the bully and their victim. <BR /> <BR />The Committee wanted the Bill to support good practice in schools and, therefore, listened carefully to the considered responses from the representatives of teachers and school principals. These teaching professionals were generally supportive of many of the proposed changes to the clause, but they also called for discretion that would permit schools to treat serious, one-off incidents as bullying. <BR /> <BR />Members felt that bullying was quite difficult to define exactly.”
“However, I think that an amended Bill would support and promote good anti-bullying practice in schools; clarify the scope of schools’ responsibility; inform future policy development through consistent record-keeping; and boost the confidence of boards of governors who want to take action on all forms of bullying, particularly cyberbullying. I suggest that, by passing an amended version of the Bill, we will be keeping the promise, which I mentioned earlier, to do something about bullying in schools. <BR /> <BR />I will now turn to the amendments that the Committee agreed to table or support. Clause 1 provides a definition of bullying. In general, all witnesses at Committee Stage supported the clause but wanted to change it. Some wanted to include wording that identified bullying targeted at specific groups.”
“I would like to thank the contributors to and facilitators of that important work. The findings from the focus groups are summarised in our report on the Bill and helped us greatly in developing the amendments that I will discuss shortly. <BR /> <BR />The Committee generally takes the view that this is a good Bill and that the Committee’s amendments, and some or all of those proposed by the Minister, will make it better. There was a suggestion, at one stage, that we change the title of the Bill to "Eradicating bullying". Will the Bill eradicate all bullying in schools? Sadly, it will not, and I do not think that anybody will make that false claim.”
“<BR /> <BR />At Second Stage, and on behalf of the Committee, I addressed some remarks to children and young people who have been the victims of bullying at school. I promised them that we would take bullying in schools very seriously. I indicated that we understood that bullying can have a very substantial impact on its victims, and, sadly, it has even led to the death of some young people. I also promised that we would listen to their concerns and, with the Minister, do something about it. <BR /> <BR />To help with the listening process, the Committee undertook a series of focus groups involving children and young people from schools representing each sector from across Northern Ireland. Those were organised by the Assembly's Research and Education Service. The moderators for the sessions included Committee staff members.”
“I will speak initially on behalf of the Committee. During Committee Stage, members considered written evidence from around 16 organisations and undertook six oral evidence briefings and six formal meetings. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the many stakeholders who wrote to the Committee or gave oral evidence. Owing to the time pressures associated with the legislative programme, it was not possible to receive oral evidence from every organisation that made a submission, but I can assure stakeholders that we studied every submission, whether written or oral, and greatly valued their input into Committee Stage. I would also like to thank the Department for attending a number of oral evidence sessions and providing written responses and clarifications to the Committee in such a short timescale.”
“I thank the Minister for her response. Specifically, what improvement works are being done in the Millisle area?”
“Just to confirm, unless I misheard the Member, he mentioned amendment No 36, but this only goes up to amendment No 28.”
“I thank the Minister for his response. It is good to see that there will be a response within this mandate. Getting the detail right on a lot of the regulations as well as the implementation for the taxi industry has been very difficult at times. What monitoring arrangements are being put in place to make sure that what we have is fit for purpose so that we may need to look at whether any tweaking needs to happen in the future?”
“<BR /> <BR />Secondly, can the Speaker confirm that when the determination was made by the panel, in March 2012, one of the provisions concerned payments to other connected parties but that the initial determination referred to contracts on or after 1 April 2012; that that mistake in the drafting was clearly noticed by the panel, which issued, in December 2012, in their own words, a fresh determination to deal with the apparent ambiguity of their first one, which, from 1 January 2013, banned any payments to parties other than those employees or pooled employees; and that, from that date, no payment was made to anybody other than employees or pooled employees?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Over the last couple of days, there have been some erroneous and mischievous allegations against the Assembly that strike at its integrity. May I ask the Speaker questions on a couple of points? First, there has been an allegation of a secret appeal mechanism in terms of expenses. Can the Speaker confirm that no such appeal mechanism exists or has ever existed; that there has never been any challenge to the determination of the panel; that the only query that any Member can make is directly with the finance office, which has been published and in existence since the first Members' handbook in 1998; and that, during that period, no query has been brought to the Commission in that regard?”
“That shows that at least some in the judiciary are beginning to take the issue seriously, but there are wider implications not just for the judiciary and for this House but for society as a whole. We need to ensure that we take all action in society to foster respect — I am not referring on this occasion to the First Minister — for the animal kingdom to ensure that that is something that pervades society as a whole. In the same way as we foster that level of respect, we should have a zero-tolerance approach to those who would inflict unnecessary cruelty on animals. It is with that that we can start to turn the corner. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the remarks that were made earlier today by the Justice Minister, particularly on amendment No 52. It is an important step forward in the fight against animal cruelty.”
“<BR /> <BR />Alongside that, there are many things that the Assembly can do and is doing on the issue of animal cruelty. It is important also that, if we are increasing sentences, the judiciary follows suit and imposes greater sentences as well. To be fair, I think that the signals that were sent out a couple of years ago, when we saw a number of very lenient sentences and, indeed, the public outrage that was then sparked as a result of that, have had a degree of impact. In the last three years, we have seen 15 custodial sentences handed down for animal cruelty offences. Indeed, the ongoing impact of that was such that, in the last year of recording of that, which was 2014, 10 of those 15 occurred.”
“<BR /> <BR />I turn briefly to amendment No 52 itself. As indicated, we are seeing that there are measures in it that will increase maximum sentences in the Crown Court. The maximum sentence in the Crown Court will increase from two years to five years, and, sadly, despite all that has been done in recent years, there are still horrendous acts of animal cruelty in this country. It is important that we have something that can act as some level of deterrent, so I welcome that. In the Magistrates' Court, for the offence of causing or attending an animal fight, there will be an increase of the maximum sentence from six months to 12 months and an increase in the maximum fine from £5,000 to £20,000. Those are very much to be welcomed, as we need as a society to bear down on animal cruelty.”
“Also, particularly regarding the issue of reassurance on animal cruelty, there will be close work with the rehoming charities. That, again, is a very worthwhile step. <BR /> <BR />I will mention one other aspect of this. A statutory rule that goes very much hand in hand with amendment No 52 will be brought before the House in the near future in relation not only to animal cruelty issues but to a range of other issues. That will enable a referral to appeal on the grounds of lenient sentences on a range of issues, including, in particular, animal cruelty offences of causing unnecessary suffering, which is covered in section 4 of the Welfare of Animals Act. While that is not before us today, I understand that it is due to come up in February and will be laid as a rule. I think that it is seen as the other side of the coin of amendment No 52.”
“I pay tribute to the Department of Justice and DARD because, since then, they have worked assiduously in bringing forward a very detailed and, I think, very worthy report on the implementation of the Welfare of Animals Act. Indeed, arising out of some of the recommendations of that, we are starting to see action. In particular, amendment No 52 derives directly from that, and I commend all those involved. <BR /> <BR />As I indicated, it is also the case that things can happen through different routes, so I welcome the Minister's remarks on intervention. While I think that very thorough work was done on that implementation, I think that both the Department of Justice and DARD will keep it in mind for the future and try to make sure, therefore, that gaps do not emerge.”
“If you trace the origins of amendment No 52, you will find that it initially came from a private Member's motion that was brought to the House on the issue of concern about the implementation of the Welfare of Animals Act, which itself was triggered by at least two horrendous cases of animal cruelty, which, again, across the House I think we would unite to condemn. George Robinson and others were involved in the Justice for Cody campaign. The particular trigger for the motion, which eventually led to this amendment, was the court case in east Belfast. I will not go into detail, but there was horrendous cruelty by one family towards animals, and this provoked, rightly, a degree of anger. It led to a motion that the House united around.”
“<BR /> <BR />I know that Mr Frew added a number of caveats in relation to the attacks on blue — the paramedics — and it is crucial that emergency workers, who provide such a vital service to our society, are also given maximum protection. Again, as with a number of aspects of this, it is difficult for many of us to get our head round the reason why people who provide such an important service become victims of attack and the kind of mentality that would lead anyone to attack someone in those circumstances. <BR /> <BR />I am speaking principally in my role as chair of the all-party group on animal welfare, particularly where amendment No 52 is concerned. The amendment has a virtuous genesis.”
“<BR /> <BR />The other area where there has been some resonance is in the thinking that bullying, like domestic violence, is purely physical. As we have seen, the psychological impact and torture, either through domestic violence, bullying, which is covered in the other Bill, or revenge porn, is every bit as important as direct physical violence. I am sure this has happened with most MLAs, but I have dealt with constituents who have been victims of domestic violence or, in some cases, revenge porn. We see the massive detrimental impact that it has on people's lives. It is right that the Assembly is stepping forward on those issues by whatever route and is taking these measures to deal with them.”
“While there is obviously not direct read-across, there is a degree of overlap in the issues that have been raised on domestic violence and revenge porn. While both can be directed towards children, they are primarily and most frequently aimed at adults. There is resonance with those issues in some of the dilemmas that we in the Committee have faced and in some of the evidence we have seen when discussing the Bill on bullying. Mr Frew made reference to a desire, which, I think, is commonly held, to go as far as we can to cover as much as we can and to balance that with what is practical. We have seen the same with bullying when deciding what scope a school realistically has. That is the same with some of these amendments: how far can we go?”
“<BR /> <BR />I welcome all the amendments in the group. As I indicated, I appreciate that one of Paul Frew's amendments will not be moved, but, in the spirit of moving forward, it could be done in cooperation with the Department of Justice as we look at the serious issue of domestic violence. That is an appropriate way to deal with it. <BR /> <BR />I commend not only Mr Frew and, indeed, Lord Morrow, who was the instigator of the amendment on the attacks on the emergency services, but the Committee for the amendments that it has brought forward. I will come in a bit more detail to the Minister's amendments, including amendment No 52, in a moment. Mr Kennedy, I think, made the point — we have seen it on a couple of fronts — that the Education Committee has been looking at how we tackle bullying.”
“When talking about the amendment, Mr Frew referred to the important subject of domestic violence. He is less worried, if you like, about whether the amendment was his or whether the Department's. What matters to him, rightly so, is the end result. Similarly, with some aspects of amendment No 52, which we touched on, if there is a way the same result can be achieved either through primary legislation, regulations or specific practical arrangements, that is where we as an Assembly need to focus. Indeed, the last speaker indicated that there may well be certain things put forward that will need some amending and tidying up before Further Consideration Stage or that are effectively forerunners of what can be built on in the future. All those are possible on the basis of trying to have some outcome, rather than process.”
“I will keep my remarks fairly brief. There will be a number of areas and amendments to the Justice (No. 2) Bill where there is genuine and sincere disagreement in the House, but I think that, with this group of amendments, we have a collection that is virtuous in nature and, I believe, the House can unite around. What is particularly significant within this set, which, I think, was referred to by the last Member, is that we are told, and I think that all of us can agree, that what we really need to concentrate on is outcome rather than process. Here we see in the way in which various Members have approached that and the subject matters within it a sign that outcome is put ahead of process. <BR /> <BR />What do I mean by that?”
“Obviously, I am keen to build on that positive exchange with the Minister, which I am sure will lead tomorrow's headlines on the Justice Bill. The whole House would agree on the need to ensure that animals are not placed in the ownership of those with convictions for animal cruelty offences. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will work closely with the animal rehoming charities and organisations to ensure that there are practical solutions and mechanisms that provide them with reassurance on this issue?”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. I suppose, very specifically in relation to amendment No 52, I welcome the very positive and detailed work which led to this amendment, which was undertaken, as the Minister has indicated, by DOJ in conjunction with DARD in the report on the implementation of the Welfare of Animals Act. That was a very productive process, which led to amendment No 52 being brought forward by the Minister today. Will the Minister give an assurance that, as we move forward, he will ensure that the legislation remains fit for purpose and that, if problems arise with implementation, it will be subject to further review?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. One tends to think purely of departmental budgets, but it is important to acknowledge that a number of projects in SIF have an educational focus. It was remiss of me not to mention them when I was covering education. Hopefully, that will make for a very positive intervention, particularly with our young people and the issue of underachievement.”
“Some minor works, which are welcome in and of themselves, arose because the capital budget could not be spent in-year. That money was diverted, so there was a shift. Nevertheless, with those caveats, we should all welcome an increase of about £48 million or £49 million for capital works. We look forward to drilling down with the Minister and his officials, hopefully in a relatively short time, on what the priorities and allocations are in the Education budget, and the Committee will very much take a watching brief. <BR /> <BR />Speaking as a DUP Member, I welcome the Budget, which comes before us in the difficult circumstances of wider financial pressures. I believe that the Minister and the Executive have done the best that is possible with the resources that they have. Therefore, I commend the Budget to the House.”