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 7 of 77.
“I would hate to think that any of my words were lost for posterity, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you for the reminder. <BR /> <BR />Those from a country sports background make a strong contribution to conservation and biodiversity, so, in supporting the Bill, I do not impugn their honour. <BR /> <BR />Similarly, even some of us who support the Bill would acknowledge that, as is almost inevitable with any Bill, not every element in it is perfect and precise, as the previous Member to speak indicated. If, as is the way of such things, the Bill progresses to the next stage — judging the mood of the House, I question whether it will receive a majority today, but we shall see — that will be the opportunity to interrogate and make changes to it.”
“<BR /> <BR />I concur that, while I am on a different page from many of them, a lot of people involved in country sports are some of the strongest conservationists in this country and play an important role in conservation. I freely acknowledge and support that. Indeed, before he reminds me, I recently —”
“I will not give way, but I will praise one of Mr Buckley's remarks. He is right that, perhaps unsurprisingly, given the controversy that there has been over the issue for a long time, there are people who feel passionately about it. There are probably minorities on both sides of the argument who take an extreme view. Those circumstances tend to lead opponents or proponents, at times, to overreach. Sometimes, supporters of such a Bill will make claims for it that do not necessarily follow through, and sometimes its opponents will overemphasise aspects of and see demons in it that are not necessarily there. When we look at the Bill, therefore, perhaps as a starting point and before we get to the Bill's principles, it is important to indicate things that are not in the Bill.”
“Mention has been made of whether this is about the welfare of the animals concerned; again, without stating the obvious, if I were able to avoid being chased across a field by a pack of dogs, my welfare would possibly be somewhat improved. We can draw a conclusion from that.”
“I also suspect that there will be differences of opinion within the broader veterinary community. <BR /> <BR />Those of you who were Members about 11 years ago will remember that those differences were displayed when we were debating a piece of legislation. We had a Division that cut across different party perspectives on hare coursing, which the House voted by a majority to ban. <BR /> <BR />I remember having an exchange with Mr Boylan, a representative who was supportive of hare coursing. I was and remain opposed to hare coursing, and, for want of any doubt, I am opposed to hunting and will support the Bill. I also speak as a former chair of the all-party group on animal welfare.”
“It is clear that hunting and, broadly speaking, animal welfare and animal cruelty issues cut across different sectors of society. There are people from a unionist background and people from a nationalist background on both sides of the argument. If I am interpreting correctly the Member who has just spoken, she and the previous representative from the SDLP who spoke are on a different page, in the same way that I am on a different page from the Member from the DUP who has just spoken. It is also the case that there is not a uniformity of position amongst country people or townies, as they might be classified. There are those from an urban background who are supportive of hunting and those from a rural background who are hostile to it, and vice versa.”
“It is right that the Minister paused to ensure that COP26 is reflected in the energy strategy as well as the change in energy prices, which will not be short-term. Does he agree that the key elements of any energy strategy have to be energy security and affordability of the burden placed on consumers and businesses?”
“It is a perfectly reasonable argument to say that there should not be any division, but it becomes intellectually dishonest when one says that this applies in this case when, actually, a distinction has to be drawn in other cases.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Will the he accept the logic of accepting this amendment? For example, in the area of employment rights at an industrial tribunal, there will be a qualifying period before somebody can take a case, as, indeed, will be the case with a range of other employment laws. Are we saying that it is justified that, on day 1, anyone has to be treated on exactly the same basis as those who reach a qualifying period? There is no logical distinction between, for example, in this case, leave for parental bereavement and any other case. Once that has been accepted, it is very difficult to make an argument that there should be any division.”
“However, if we pass this today, we are simply signing a blank cheque. I and my party will oppose the amendment.”
“During the debate on the previous group of amendments, the Chair said, correctly, that we have freedom of opportunity in what we do with employment law, but that also means that we have to pay for any choices that we make from our Budget, leaving aside whether it creates any implications down the line in terms of a broad parity issue of money being drawn back in. Again, that leads to a scenario in which we are racking up additional costs, not simply on this one aspect, and are setting the legal opportunity for others to challenge matters relating to day-1 rights on a range of other issues across the board. If that is being justified on the grounds that this measure will cost a certain amount and that we are willing to sacrifice other areas to afford it, I can understand that argument.”
“<BR /> <BR />It comes back to the point that was made earlier about our simply accepting legislation and changes that will have economic consequences, meaning that we are effectively writing a blank cheque without knowing what the costs will be. On previous occasions, Members have been very critical about particular government schemes that have totalled much greater costs than were initially anticipated, but that is precisely what we are doing today. At least today, we are writing that blank cheque with our eyes open. That is the fundamental problem that lies at the heart of the amendment. There is no other way in which this can be massaged: breaking parity on the issue will lead to direct costs for Northern Ireland.”
“<BR /> <BR />I would be a lot more comfortable with the amendment if the argument that was being made were that, for that opportunity cost, changing employment law and having the implications felt across other aspects of employment law — for example, with industrial tribunals — would lead to an additional cost of £10 million, which would be, if you like, sacrificed elsewhere. There is a certain level of collective dishonesty in simply saying that we will have no cost and that there will be no implications elsewhere. We are not even at that point, however, because we do not have a clue what the level of the cost would be.”
“The repercussive costs of this particular change in employment law would undoubtedly lead to a considerable financial cost to the Executive down the line. Given whatever resources the Executive have, and they are not infinite, it would not simply be a matter of adding costs on to things and that being the end of it. If we are to spend an additional £5 million, £10 million, £20 million or £25 million — whatever the figure happens to be — it will be money that has come from other sources. There will be an economic opportunity cost, meaning that you cannot do other virtuous things.”
“If the repercussions were to happen with employment law across the board, however, it could run into millions upon millions of pounds. Let us be clear about what we are potentially doing by breaking parity today. <BR /> <BR />Again, the argument will be whether that will mean a level of benefit for a group of workers. Yes, it will. In my experience, if government and legislation were a choice between doing good things and bad things, or between funding good projects and defunding bad projects, it would be very easy. What is stamped through government, however, like a mantra on a stick of rock, is that, generally speaking, we choose between different things that benefit different sets of people and different things that are virtuous to different groups of people. We often choose between good things and good things.”
“It is this: why should two employees who are sitting side by side, one who had been there for a matter of days and one who has been there for a number of years, be treated in any way differently? If that is true of, for example, parental bereavement, why is it not true of every other aspect of employment law? Where is the logic in drawing any distinction? If we were to change that, what would the cost implications be across the board? Where would that leave us with any legal vulnerability, if somebody in a different set of circumstances were to challenge the law on that basis? Even if the miscarriage provisions are not put in place, the direct implications of the changes will lead to some additional set-up costs of £1·5 million. It will also probably lead to a small ongoing cost each year.”
“I do not question the motivation behind the Committee's amendment. Again, there are good intentions in it, but, as the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The issue is not simply that the amendment would break parity but that the proposed change would have repercussive implications. <BR /> <BR />As the Chair said, the indications are that the direct cost for the number of employees who would be directly impacted on in any given year is relatively small. It is less about that, however, and more about the implications that the amendment would have for wider employment law. <BR /> <BR />There is a logical deduction that the Chair has already mentioned.”
“I will keep my remarks brief. There is considerable crossover, particularly on the financial aspects, with what was previously said. I am very concerned about the amendment.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I appreciate the points made by Ms Armstrong, who probably has more expertise than others in the language around this, and that the communication has been disjointed. In amendment No 4, the wording is that consultation "may include", so it is permissive. That means that none of the points in the amendment are essential elements of the consultation. They could change, and other stuff could be added. I would like to think that, before any views were sought through consultation, there would be appropriate work with those who have great expertise to make sure that the language was right and did not breach any sensitivities. The wording is not "shall" but "may".”
“I appreciate that this is a point that we have covered to some extent. I do not know whether there is any more detail that the Minister can give on the time frame. One of the major differences between the Department's amendment and the Committee's amendment is the time frame and whether this is achievable within one year. I do not know whether he can give the House any more detail on the timeline. From experience, I know the length of time that these things take, and the House needs to know what is realistic and what is not.”
“This is probably more of a procedural point. The Member mentioned that, effectively, whatever we decide today would not necessarily be set in stone because of the further opportunities that we will have. However, the Member should be aware that we are dealing with the Bill's Consideration Stage, which is the main point at which amendments are made. Further Consideration Stage is, largely speaking, about a certain level of tweaking. The scope to make widespread amendments is much reduced at that stage. We should not blind ourselves by thinking that whatever decision we take today can simply be reversed at Further Consideration Stage if further information comes to light.”
“The Committee amendments, while well-intentioned, do not have the same potential benefit as the ministerial amendments.”
“While everyone is coming at this with good intentions, as do the Committee amendments, it is critical that we have good legislation. I do not want to see legislation that cannot be implemented for a lengthy period because of practical difficulties or that has such major economic repercussions that it stops other good work being done. <BR /> <BR />We can point to a large number of examples of where aiding people is of benefit to them. When there are major financial commitments, however, those come out of other budgets, preventing other good things from happening. It may well be that, when the legislation is scrutinised, not all fears will be realised. Given its scale, however, we need to take a cautious approach. That is why I commend the ministerial amendments.”
“While it is important that we do not necessarily put a price tag on things, we have a duty to ensure that, whatever legislation we pass, we know precisely its consequences, and those can be financial. It is concerning that the spectre of £100 million has been raised. We know that there are other aspects that will cost additional money. Understandably, people have been highly critical in the past of commitments given about legislation and schemes that were put in place and that ended up costing the public purse a much greater amount than was initially anticipated. It is therefore right that we exercise some caution. <BR /> <BR />Consequently, the precautionary approach taken by the Minister and the Department to ensure that the legislation is got right and that any scheme brought forward is affordable is the correct one.”
“I have concern about and question the time frame in the relevant amendment. <BR /> <BR />Thirdly, there is another level of potential divergence. The Committee received correspondence yesterday, and we need to explore in much greater detail its repercussive impacts.”
“I know that the Minister has talked about that, and I look forward to his remarks later in the debate. The question is whether, given other existing pressures, the time frame, the divergence between the Committee's amendments and the ministerial amendments, and taking into account purdah, the election, recess and, indeed, the pressure of putting forward other legislation, there is a genuine chance that this could be put in place within a 12-month period. <BR /> <BR />We need the whole package; there is no point in doing something that is piecemeal in nature. We need something that will cover all families. Whether that can be done within 12 months is questionable. As someone who has served as a Minister, I know about the pressures in Departments. It is right that the issues are consulted on.”
“To some extent, there is always pressure on legislation, particularly as we move towards the latter days of any Assembly term. The understandable desire to get things through becomes overwhelming. In doing so, however, there is also a need to take time to make sure that we get the provisions right. To that extent, we clearly need a level of consultation to make sure that the detail matches the proper level of provision. <BR /> <BR />Secondly, there is a strong desire for the legislation to be in place as early as possible. We know that the issue is not provided for at present. In many cases, individual employers will be understanding, but there is no equality. Therefore, we need to be wary of anything that delays legislation of this nature, because any delay will impact directly on families.”
“The divergence, as we will see today, is on precisely how we do that. The Minister's amendment indicates a clear acceptance of the need to make such provision. <BR /> <BR />There are three areas where there is divergence or caveats. First, it is undoubtedly the case that when the legislation, which mirrors legislation elsewhere, was brought forward, miscarriage had not been included in the initial consultation. As the Chair mentioned, while a number of stakeholders came forward with thoughts on that issue, the main groups involved with miscarriage were not particularly lobbying for that initially, and it was not consulted on. <BR /> <BR />It is important in all legislation, but particularly in something as sensitive as this, that we get the provision right.”
“<BR /> <BR />I praise the Minister and his predecessor for bringing the legislation forward. The Committee and the House are as one in recognising the significance of parental bereavement. At least three Committee members have, in recent months, lost a parent, and we know the grief and the impact of that. Whatever the grief for us as sons and daughters, however, the grief of parents when they lose a child is horrendous. It seems to go, in some ways, against the natural order of things. The provision in the legislation for bereavement leave is important. <BR /> <BR />While the divergence in this group of amendments is on how we treat miscarriage, there is no doubt that it is accepted across the board that we need to make provision for parents who have suffered miscarriage.”
“I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. As a member of the Committee for the Economy, I welcome the evidence sessions that we had. Exploring some of the detail not only with departmental officials but with a range of stakeholders has been invaluable in considerations of the matter. <BR /> <BR />As mentioned by the Chair and the Minister, there is a divergence of opinion on the route that we should take at Consideration Stage today. Perhaps, on a broader note of consensus, it may be worthwhile highlighting a couple of points on which, at least, there is some level of unity. Everyone accepts the significance, importance and sensitivity of the legislation, particularly as we consider today bereavement after miscarriage. It is important that we make provision in that area.”
“A point that one of my colleagues raised with the Bill sponsor is that there is limited detail on how we directly define a victim of domestic abuse, be they a direct victim or an indirect victim. My colleague may dwell on that a bit longer. <BR /> <BR />It is clear that the broad principles of the Bill are ones that all of us in the House can accept and support. I look forward to the work that will go on in the Committee to delve into the detail, because, although the regulations will be brought forward at a later stage, it is important that we get this as right as we can from day one. That will mean us balancing the need to four-square future levels of consultation with providing the greatest level of certainty to employers and, particularly, the victims of domestic abuse.”
“I agree: we will have to draw on lessons from other jurisdictions. They will have to be put in the particular culture of Northern Ireland to see whether they will work in practice here, as we seem to live in a very small and enclosed world. <BR /> <BR />Mention was made on a number of occasions of the research that has been done. The Bill sponsor said that she sees the process as being financially self-washing for employers as the money saved would more than compensate for any cost. There is a duty on the Committee to drill down and make sure that employers are also protected and are not left in a disadvantaged position as a result of trying to do the right thing by following the law and protecting their employees.”
“I will take a brief intervention as my time is limited.”
“It is important that we have a recognition that there is some relatively straightforward process through which the process can be triggered. Allied to that, particularly as Northern Ireland is a very small place, how can we ensure that, in the relationship between employee and employer, we have confidentiality when it comes to information? For instance, how do we ensure that, when somebody is suddenly missing from work for a few days, the whispers do not go round that, "So-and-so is off because of domestic abuse" and their business is put in the public domain? We need something that is clear cut within that.”
“The direct financial burden on the Department may, in the grand scheme of things, not be that large. However, it is also important, as we look at the detail of the legislation, that we ensure that the correct powers are there for the Department. For example, if there is a need for the Department to obtain particular pieces of information so that it is able to draw up a report, will we have to look at tabling amendments to ensure that the Department has the legal authority to do that? <BR /> <BR />Although I understand very strongly that it would be too much to try to have a burden of proof in the legislation, ultimately the format or level of notification that is required for triggering the process may be in the regulations so that there is certainty for the employee and the employer.”
“To that end, I will highlight a couple of issues that are important.”
“I think that the Member will concede that, as it places a requirement on the Department to bring forward regulations, those will have to be subjected to considerable consultation and there will have to be additional steps. It is right that it is not overly prescriptive. The Committee will want to make sure that the detail is sufficient, at least at this stage. It is important that we give as much certainty as can, as early as we can, to employees who are potential victims of domestic abuse and to employers.”
“In addition, importantly, the Bill should, as much as possible, be preventative and proactive in combating domestic abuse, rather than being simply reactive. The provision that indicates that it does not have to be a sustained system of abuse, but rather can, essentially, be provoked by a clear initial one-off incident, could help as an intervention. It could help to save lives. <BR /> <BR />It is often the case in the House that, when we look at the balance between the details in a Bill and what is then put in regulations, there is an over-elaboration at the initial stage. We can be too prescriptive about the details initially, but the Bill does not have that tendency.”
“Similarly, as has been indicated, the Bill, in many ways, provides a statutory footing for something that is provided on a much more informal basis by a number of employers in the public sector and the private sector. I think that the Committee will want to learn the lessons from elsewhere on what is happening on a more informal basis. <BR /> <BR />As is the case with much legislation, there is a balance to be struck between how prescriptive the Bill is in the first instance and what needs to be brought in via regulations. Although the Bill highlights a number of key principles, it, essentially, acts as a paving mechanism. The level of leave is clearly stated in the Bill. Similarly, it deals with the issue of not having to show a burden of proof in order to qualify for the leave. I appreciate the points that the sponsor made on that.”
“<BR /> <BR />If the Bill is brought through in this mandate and we reach the point at which it becomes law, we will be the first jurisdiction among our neighbours to have this issue on a statutory basis. Mention has been made of the Republic of Ireland, where similar proposals are being brought in. I do not know what level of hold-up there is, but I suspect that the Irish Government will not be hanging on my every word. While the actions that we are taking are not unique, we would be the early runners among our neighbouring jurisdictions. As was indicated by the Bill sponsor, we can draw from examples from other jurisdictions, be it New Zealand, Canada or Italy. There are lessons that can be learned.”
“I think that all of us would like to live in a society from which domestic abuse had been eliminated, but, unfortunately, too many women and, indeed, men are victims of domestic abuse. The Chair and the Bill sponsor highlighted — this is of particular relevance to the Economy Committee — the impact on our workforce and the economic impact for employers. A number of studies have been highlighted. Beyond the pure facts and figures of the economic impact, the scourge of domestic abuse bears down on the individual. It can ruin people's lives. Tragically, it has led to the death of a number of women. That is utterly unacceptable in our society. The more that we can do to combat domestic abuse, the more that we should embrace those opportunities.”
“I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. As a member of the Economy Committee, I welcome the fact that the Committee had the first opportunity to deal with some of the details of this with the sponsor of the Bill. That was a very useful session. At the outset, I will say that I think that there will be a unity of purpose and views across the Chamber in relation to domestic abuse. For the avoidance of any obfuscation or doubt, my party will support the Bill passing Second Stage, as I hope all other parties will. <BR /> <BR />I am sure that the Bill sponsor agrees that, in a certain regard, it is a pity that legislation of this nature is necessary.”
“This is a reasonable route that does not impugn or impede the general thrust of the Bill. The thrust to reduce and remove undue delay is right. Having the safeguard of the amendments means that I am willing to go through the Lobbies to support Mr Allister's compromise. I am similarly prepared to support the Minister's amendment.”
“However, if it means that, in the small number of cases where there is not a prima facie case, we can stop an expensive public trial and serve the interests of justice, that seems to be a balanced situation. <BR /> <BR />I spoke at the outset of the eminence of the Member who proposes this. Undoubtedly, the 2015 position and, indeed, the amendments that he puts forward today represent a compromise. Clearly, many who are from a strong legal background are much more eminent than I am — some may even claim greater eminence than the proposer of the amendments, although I am sure that that might be questioned by others — and they would go much further than these amendments. <BR /> <BR />It was in 2015, and it is today, a compromise. I welcome that compromise and the position taken by the proposer of the amendments.”
“Access to that mechanism is only through a judge deciding that it is in the interests of justice. As was indicated, it is not on the basis of these amendments, one of which is an appeal mechanism on the grounds of merit. That would not differ from a normal trial. It would apply only when the judge made an error in law. On a different level, many Members across the Chamber will have experience of dealing with non-criminal behaviour in, for example, a social security appeal tribunal. They will know how difficult it is, having failed on the merits of a case, to find a successful argument in law for why that verdict should be overturned. <BR /> <BR />This will be put in place in an extremely rare set of situations.”
“<BR /> <BR />The argument that that would be used in some way as a form of deterrent, either to the prosecution or, indeed, to witnesses, would hold water more strongly were it in some way an automatic right that was being triggered. However, that can only be where it is through the very clear filtration of a judge deciding in that particular set of circumstances, which, even in current circumstances, is relatively rare, that it is in the overwhelming interests of justice. <BR /> <BR />To succeed at a preliminary investigation, then, the defendant's counsel would have to show that there is not even a prima facie case against the defendant. That is an extremely difficult burden for a defendant to prove. What it does mean is that there is a filtration mechanism for cases without real merit that were taken against the interests of justice.”
“Consequently, the protections that are potentially being put in place by Mr Allister's amendments represent a reasonable compromise. <BR /> <BR />Mr Beattie's argument that there is a genuine concern that those protections might be used to clog up the system does not bear a relationship with the real world of trials. In the vast majority of trials, as Mr Allister indicated, defendants are not looking to initiate preliminary investigations in order to delay the system. Indeed, in many ways, given that the only hurdle to be overcome at committal stage is for the prosecution to show that there is a prima facie case, the opportunity for a defendant to be exonerated by way of being found not guilty is a much easier route when it comes to full trial. The prosecution has a much greater burden to show that it is beyond reasonable doubt.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is undoubtedly the case — the Chair of the Committee indicated a similar view — that, while I believe that the legislation is a step forward, it is not a silver bullet. It will not eliminate all actions that could lead to delays. It does not mean that we will have a faster justice system. It is also the case that the burden that could be placed on victims of crime and on witnesses should be kept to a minimum. The general principle that essentially says that, where possible, we do not subject witnesses to having to give the same evidence twice is an important one. <BR /> <BR />All those things need to be balanced, but, when trials do not need to proceed, we should ensure that they do not proceed unnecessarily and that there is a fair trial.”
“To that extent, therefore, I was very happy to support the Bill at Second Stage. Whether or not the amendments are successful today, I will be happy to continue to support the right motivations in the Bill. <BR /> <BR />In terms of the balances and the interests of justice, it is certainly in the interests of justice that it delivers for the public purse in a reasonable fashion. Committal proceedings play an important role in that regard. It is also important that justice is timely. Consequently, even if the amendments are accepted, the general principle, which essentially says that, in the vast majority of cases, a preliminary investigation — the initial stage of committal proceedings — is not necessary from a time point of view, is a case that is well made. That should be the general presumption in our system.”
“When we look at the criminal justice system and the trial system, we see that the overriding onus on us all is the preservation and protection of justice. For those who are involved in the criminal justice system, that impacts on a wide range of people. It can be justice for the victims of crime, justice for witnesses, justice to ensure that there is a fair trial for defendants and, from that perspective, justice in the wider context of what is in society's best interests as a whole. To that extent, again — it goes to the heart of the amendments — that has a range of particular connotations. <BR /> <BR />I accept and support the motivation and general principles of the Bill. Any actions that we can take to ensure that we can remove undue delay from the criminal justice system are good.”