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 74 of 77.
“Especially from me. He has been very generous in helping to facilitate the debate, given that it is largely an operational matter. I also understand and appreciate that, because of the nature of that, while it will not in any way dampen the fervour with which the Minister will speak on the subject, it will by definition limit the scope of any remarks that he can make on the subject. That is understood by all those involved. <BR /> <BR />I have mixed feelings. On at least two grounds, it is, in many ways, a shame that we have to have the debate.”
“I suspect that the topic of today's Adjournment debate will find a fair degree of consensus around the Chamber, but all of us approach it with some mixed emotions. I express gratitude that the Business Committee has allowed the debate to be selected today on the closest opportunity that we have had to the tenth anniversary of the disappearance of Lisa Dorrian. I also commend the Justice Minister. I suppose that he can take advantage of a commendation when he gets it. It is rare enough in the House.”
“I thank the Minister for his responses. How many people or groups responded to the consultation, and what was the range of those groups?”
“I thank the junior Minister for her answers so far. Will she outline the timetable for the implementation of such legislation? Does she envisage it being implemented in this mandate?”
“At the moment, call-in and QMV are actually in the standing orders of all councils, so there is nothing to stop anybody using call-in at present. The problem is that it could be used for anything, however vexatious, with the few exceptions that Mr Maginness raised, which I acknowledge. It could be used for the most superfluous of issues, to be frank. The Minister and others in his party have complained about the use of a petition of concern, yet this is effectively putting the petition of concern into local government in all instances.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. The problem is that he indicates that you need to specify the reasons, but you could specify the most spurious reasons with no relevance at all to community interest. Once you have specified your reasons and once you have triggered the mechanism of the call-in on that basis, it does not matter, for example, whether the lawyer says that it is utterly vexatious and is utter nonsense, whether it is about putting 10p on the rate that you charge for swimming in the local leisure centre or lifting the bins or any of those things. No matter how utterly spurious it is, so long as you give a reason, that automatically follows through to the position of becoming a qualified majority vote according to the regulations. That is the problem.”
“Is that not going against the spirit of what was agreed?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. We could all have a separate discussion of process issues. Obviously, as regards the principle of the issue, everybody has been, and remains, committed to call-in and the qualified majority vote for the protection of minorities. Effectively, part of those discussions have been going since day one. Will the Member actually address the merits of this? We can bandy about comments as to when particular things should have happened and what process should be used, but we are dealing with the detail of specific regulations and the import of what is there. Can the Member name a single council decision of any nature — no matter how little impact it has on the community — where, if somebody put a call-in saying, "This adversely affects my community", it would not then become part of qualified majority voting?”
“However, we have to be careful that, if there is an unforeseen circumstance, we do not fall into that problem and regret at some later stage the decision that has been made today. For that reason, we will vote against this, and we have used the petition of concern because we believe that something better can be put in place.”
“I perhaps stand to be corrected on that. If we do have a slight delay in trying to make sure that we get this right, from a practical point of view, that will not make a great deal of difference on the ground. However, we believe that this is a very important point. <BR /> <BR />I apologise that we have reconsidered the provision quite late in the day, and I appreciate the inconvenience to the House on that, but I think that it is important that we get this right. If we simply go ahead with a system that is entirely carte blanche and has no restriction whatsoever to a call-in mechanism, which will make it simply an automatic qualified majority vote on all occasions, I fear that, across local government, we may well be storing up trouble for ourselves. I suspect that the Department did not intend that, and I do not criticise it for that.”
“<BR /> <BR />It seems to me a nonsense that, if we put in place that legal opinion has to be sought, the import of the legislation is that, at best, it becomes entirely a tick-box exercise and, at worst, a useful device for lawyers to earn a few pounds, but that their opinion is utterly irrelevant because the decision automatically becomes subject to QMV. We believe that that element of things is wrong. If there needs to be some tweak to the legislation or, in this case, to the regulations, we are quite happy to entertain that. <BR /> <BR />In the broad level, we do not disagree with the general thrust of what is there. We are in a situation in which, as far as I am aware, all 11 councils have adopted qualified majority voting and call-ins in their standing orders.”
“— and I see I have found some level of agreement from at least some Members of the House in relation to that. It is clear that, as part of the Stormont House Agreement, there will be discussions on that, and we will look at that issue, so there will be a discussion for another day. <BR /> <BR />We are mindful of the situation, even five or six years ago, in that a mechanism whereby six councillors of a particular opinion effectively automatically turned any decision they wanted into a qualified majority vote was not going to be appropriate for local government. That is why there has been a discussion on whether it should be a panel, the ombudsman or a legal opinion and why, specifically, in the legislation, we put in place that legal opinion had to be sought on this.”
“There are plenty of examples on both sides of the community where, potentially, if this is put in place and is allowed to automatically become a qualified majority vote simply by the assertion of it, where a coach and horses could be driven through it, and it could simply become tit for tat across the board. <BR /> <BR />I know that this is a debate for another day, but there has been criticism, particularly from the Minister's party, in relation to the use of petitions of concern in this place, and I hold my hands up as one of the most guilty culprits in relation to that, but the argument is —”
“I doubt that any lawyer and anybody who is legally qualified, including me or the more eminent lawyer Mr Allister, will claim to be entirely infallible on all occasions. I take on board the point being made. The problem is that we still have a situation in which you could line up every lawyer in the world, and they would say that this is vexatious, that it is not a proper call-in and is not something that adversely impacts, whether it is from the lifting of bins in a particular area to whatever. You can say that something is entirely vexatious. It does not meet the qualifications for it, yet, according to the legislation, it automatically becomes a qualified majority vote. <BR /> <BR />The danger with this is — and it is something that we were mindful of at the start — that, first of all, it is used legitimately.”
“The problem with this is that you could get the most vexatious application in the world, which would then go to the lawyer who could say, "This is absolute nonsense. This is simply grandstanding by half a dozen councillors". Yet, even though the clear-cut opinion is that there are no grounds whatsoever to proceed, according to the regulations, the decision automatically becomes one that is taken by a qualified majority vote. Under these circumstances, you are left questioning the role of the lawyer.”
“Clearly the intention behind that — certainly, our intention — was that this would be used simply on legitimate grounds. I appreciate the point about the concern that has been raised over the way the legislation has been drafted. It has been suggested by the Department that any filter or blocking mechanism that comes from a legal opinion is effectively taken out, and what we are left with in the call-in procedure is that an application is made, justification is given and there is a lawyer's opinion. However, according to regulation 4(8), when the legal opinion is obtained, the clerk must:”
“<BR /> <BR />Call-in and qualified majority votes have been mentioned. We do not have problem with those as concepts, and we do not have any problem with the broad thrust of the way that this is put together. Indeed, as the Minister indicated, at the strategic leadership board and before that in discussions, the idea of a call-in was unanimously agreed by the five main parties through a policy development panel, which I was part of. That panel agreed the percentages and the idea of qualified majority vote, but it was also indicated at the very start that that should only happen where there is a clear adverse impact. When we came to discuss section 41 of the legislation, provision was made, in absence of any other suggestion, for, essentially, a qualified legal opinion to be given to act as the filter mechanism.”
“Mention has been made about the reasons given by the Department for why it is felt that that cannot be much of a particular issue. Indeed, there is a concern over what is there in the law. <BR /> <BR />When we were looking at this issue initially, which became part of the overall local government legislation, there was a desire — this is something that predates the legislation by quite a time — to say that adequate provisions should be put in to ensure that the only successful call-ins and the only successful use of QMV will be in very genuine cases where it leads to an adverse impact that, clearly, is detrimental to one community or another. That should be a reasonable test and something on which there should be clear levels of protections and safeguards. The issue has been ongoing for at least five or six years.”
“I will perhaps answer some of the questions that have been raised. Although I was not at that Committee meeting, the Chair of the Committee has probably reached one of the key points. The reason for the petition of concern and why we are concerned is based on two grounds. First and principally, it has been mentioned that a slightly better mechanism may well need to be looked at that than purely having the opinion of a barrister, but that in itself would not be something that would block this. If that had been the only consideration, we would not be opposing this. I think that it is something that needs to be looked at. The bigger concern is the other issue that the Chair raised, which is what might be described as the filter mechanism.”
“— were made about what were described as inappropriate subsidies. That is not the route that I believe we should be going down. I support amendment No 2.”
“I have only a few seconds left, much to the chagrin of the Member. It is clear — to be fair, the Alliance Party has been fairly consistent on this — that it wants major levels of taxation through water charges, which would be an additional pressure. The Minister mentioned that every 1% increase in rates would raise only £5 million, but it would create an environment in which there is much greater pressure. A range of points, which, again, were not gone into in any great detail —”
“We are prepared to look, and the Minister referred to a range of issues whereby there could be some additional benefit, but we do not believe that the solution is to tax, tax and tax again. That is where, in particular, I have a problem with the Alliance amendment. <BR /> <BR />I certainly agree that, when waste can be cut, it should be cut, but the Alliance amendment is clearly code for a number of its ideas for additional revenue, which, perhaps in the grand scheme of things, may not add a great deal to the public purse but would create a great deal of strain for individuals. I wondered whether Alliance was going to mention water charges; it came towards the end of the speech. For a while, it seemed to be the love that dare not speak its name, but mixed in there with rate rises —”
“The Minister mentioned a range of presumably well-meaning suggestions, which, when examined close up, or, indeed, in the case of the airport that we were to sell, despite the fact that we did not own it, even at a distance, did not stand up. <BR /> <BR />We are certainly approaching additional revenue raising with an open mind. The key test for fiscal devolution is whether it is beneficial to Northern Ireland and evidence-based, hence our position on corporation tax and the fact that we have kept an open mind — I appreciate that this is a particular interest of the proposer of the motion — on APD. Clearly, the indications on long-haul flights have been accepted, but the balance on shorter-haul flights is more difficult to determine. We do not have a doctrinaire position.”
“A number of Members mentioned that the block grant has been under greater levels of pressure, which I think is a truism. No doubt we, like other regions of the United Kingdom, are in a tougher financial position, although, as a number of Members, including Mr McCallister, said, despite the pressures that we have been under, we are not in the situation of the Republic of Ireland and certainly not of Greece, which seems, in economic terms, to move from tragedy to farce at a galloping pace. Nevertheless, the existence of these pressures means that we need to give careful consideration to the way forward. We need to be innovative and imaginative as we look forward to the financial position of Northern Ireland while remaining grounded in a sense of realism.”
“I very much agree with the Minister that, despite the wide range of issues raised, there was a lack of concrete, plausible suggestions as to how we could move forward on particular revenue-raising proposals.”
“As we look ahead beyond 2016, there will have to be a considerable amount of consideration as to how we take things forward, and, if today is the first salvo in a wider debate on how we can deal with a range of issues, perhaps the width of discussion that we saw in today's debate was not a bad thing in starting to open up a thinking process in that regard.”
“I support the amendment in my name and that of my colleagues. As the Minister said, we have had quite a wide-ranging debate. At times, I was a little bit taken aback by some of the issues that were raised, which seemed to stretch the elasticity of the debate and go a little bit beyond what is down in black and white. For instance, the proposer spent a reasonable amount of time talking about a living wage, which, while worthy of debate, seems to be a little bit tangential to the wording of the motion. <BR /> <BR />In the spirit of generosity, I will highlight something that the proposer said, which I think is true. It is a good opportunity.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Before you get too much into water rates, you mentioned inappropriate subsidies and gave two examples. Where does Alliance stand on free transport for the elderly?”
“Given the fact that the Lord Chief Justice is against the proposals, how will access to justice be guaranteed, particularly for the people of Bangor, Newtownards and Holywood, where approximately 150,000 people will be left without even a courthouse in the area? How can access to justice be maintained for the people in those circumstances?”
“Why was a voluntary exit scheme considered necessary rather than the alternative options that, as he outlined, were considered as well?”
“I thank the First Minister for the answers that he has given so far. Does he believe that the Executive could better harness the UK presence across the globe to promote Northern Ireland internationally?”
“As indicated in previous debates, it may well be that we will look back in a few years' time and see that it signposts directions for the better delivery of services for all people, ones that actually protect the most important aspects of society and its most vulnerable people. I therefore commend the Budget Bill to the House.”
“Mr Cree, for instance, raised the concern, "What if we do not get enough people?". Those are not the soundings that I am receiving from people at the moment. From my experience of exit schemes in the past and the feedback I get at present, I would be surprised if we did not get the situation in which there were too many people looking out rather than too few. That is the feedback that I get. While I think that the change will make a high level of difference — we can debate and argue over that, and time will tell — in the past, in any voluntary exit scheme, the tendency has been that too many people have been interested, rather than too few. That may be something that we have to deal with. <BR /> <BR />I believe that what we have overall is a sensible Budget that actually looks to the future.”
“<BR /> <BR />I am concerned that many of the signals that have come from the SDLP, in particular, seem to highlight the rates support grant as being almost the number one priority, when, from a practical point of view, it is the equivalent of 0·5% in the overall local rate that is put in place. We need to see and ensure that that is prioritised when there is a freeing up of resources. <BR /> <BR />It is clear, as we move forward, that there is an important reform of public sector services of which the voluntary exit scheme is a key component. There are a couple of points to be made on that. First, as has been stated time and again and despite the spin put on it by others — to be fair, probably outside the House — the exit scheme is, by definition, entirely voluntary. Therefore, people will make a choice.”
“While it is acknowledged that some members will be part of a voluntary exit scheme, that is not taken into account when looking at those figures or, indeed, when looking at where some money can be diverted from, such as the carrier bags levy. I do not think that we are getting a particularly honest appraisal from the Department about its financial position. I want to say specifically on that, because we will have to face some decisions fairly quickly in connection to that in the Department of the Environment, that I would like to ensure that priority is given to road safety, albeit perhaps delivered in a different way.”
“It is not a problem unique to Northern Ireland; Whitehall has faced it for many years. I think that we also see that in Departments at times. <BR /> <BR />Sometimes, Departments put a spin to their Committee, quite understandably, to try to establish why they should receive more money. As well as the Committee for Finance and Personnel, I serve on the Committee for the Environment, and we have seen figures presented there about a wide range of good things, generally speaking, that the Department does that will clearly lack funding. However, the figures do not take account of the fact that a very large percentage of the departmental budget will be spent simply on staffing.”
“We need a much more strategic point of view. A knee-jerk reaction of simply putting cuts in place does not bring that about. I agree that there is a longer-term need for the reform of teacher training, but we have to try to move forward as best possible on a wider scheme with consensus. <BR /> <BR />I will come back to the remarks that I made at the start on reforms to the structure. A memorandum of understanding, for instance, would be useful, but, unless it is accompanied by a very honest assessment from each Department when they present to Committees, it will have limited value. Not unsurprisingly, mention was made of the extent to which Treasury seeks to contain information so that nobody else has that knowledge. That has been something that Whitehall has faced.”
“First of all, the position on pensions is not unique simply to the teaching profession. As we have an ageing profession, unions have inevitably raised concerns, and there has had to be pension reform in a wide range of professions, particularly in the public service. We still have a situation where, to be fair, despite even those changes, the public-sector pension schemes tend to be the most advantageous in society as a whole. <BR /> <BR />There is a wider challenge to find a long-term structural change in teacher training. We cannot essentially engineer that by the back door, so simply taking action that impacts on a couple of teacher training bodies is not particularly strategic. That is why I think the Executive took the correct approach when taking their position on St Mary's and Stranmillis.”
“As per some of the points that were made, I think that the Health Department, the Education Department and other Departments are in need of a shake-up and change. Nevertheless health and education are probably the two key front-line services that most people want to see protected as much as possible. I think that we have a Budget that does that. Finally, I turn —”
“In terms of transparency of action, some of the criticisms have been from the Department of Education. Nevertheless, one of the changes between the draft Budget and the final Budget that we face today has been an acceptance of the protection of the front-line services that are being provided in schools. The £63 million, I think it was, that the Executive put in place, which was matched with what I think is an extra £17 million for the delegated schools spend coming directly from the Department, should mean that, while there are still pressures in schools, the radical pressures that would have led to wide-scale redundancies and a diminution in the services that are provided to our children in Northern Ireland have been avoided.”
“Nor, indeed, as some others have criticised, is it a blank cheque. A specific amount has been set aside, and I welcome that. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the amount of money that has been set aside for health. Part of the wider challenge of change is where TYC and other things will be quite important. There is no doubt that there are major issues, not just for Northern Ireland but, essentially, across the Western World with health spend. I believe that we need the twin pillars of reform of health spend, which I think is happening, and to ensure that, as best as possible, front-line services in health are protected. Therefore, I make no apology for the fact that, in tough economic times, the biggest single winner out of the Budget is the health service, with an extra £204 million as part of this Budget going into place.”
“Without rehashing the arguments, that is precisely the full amount that another party, had it been successful, would have cut every penny from, including the projects for which there were legal requirements, so I welcome that. <BR /> <BR />While it has been somewhat belated, and an earlier agreement being reached could have saved the Executive a considerable amount of money, I welcome the fact that, with agreement on welfare reform, we have a situation where welfare reform is going ahead with, effectively, an identified financial safety net to ensure that the most vulnerable in our society are not disadvantaged. That is a genuine safety net and is unlike the way that some in the House would present it when they say that there is nothing really there to cushion the blow. There is a set amount in the Budget.”
“<BR /> <BR />I took a little bit of exception earlier on when the Chair of the Committee, possibly speaking in a personal capacity, mentioned the sterling work that one of the members, Mr Flanagan, had supposedly done in Fermanagh, hosting a meeting on rates revaluation. At the same time, his colleagues were putting through an increase in Fermanagh rates of over 5% this year. That was opposed by my party and the Ulster Unionists and some of the SDLP. People have to be absolutely consistent. I think that we have a Budget that is consistent. It seems that, at times, others are not particularly following through in connection with that. <BR /> <BR />I welcome that the Budget secures a range of much-needed projects. As has been highlighted, this year's Budget does contain £26 million of SIF money.”
“Speaking of realism, the impact of a 1% rise in regional rates is that that would maybe generate another £5 million or £6 million. If we are to radically change things on that basis, the only logical conclusion from the Alliance's position is to increase that by a massive amount. That is not something that this Executive have done, and I think that they are right. I have some sympathy for the point that we had a non-domestic rates revaluation, and, as Paul Girvan said, it is an attempt to try to rebalance things to a certain extent. Inevitably, it will produce winners and losers, and it may be open to question that that has been entirely fair in each individual case.”
“At times, some members of the Alliance Party have suggested massively ramping up regional rates as a device to do so. Obviously, Mr Lunn is a dissenting voice on that.”
“It is also a Budget that is consistent with the broad economic sphere. I have some sympathy on the issue of how we fund, in particular, specialist cancer drugs, and I think that that means that there is a need for a look again at prescriptions. Leaving that aside, I think that the temptation has been resisted to simply say, because the Budget is under greater strain, let us look at where we can squeeze whatever additional bit of money out of hard-pressed taxpayers and ratepayers. We have had an Executive and a Finance Minister that have operated on the basis of ensuring that burdens of taxation on members of the public and on businesses are kept to a minimum. That is replicated in the Budget, so that the temptation that could have been there has been resisted.”
“There is no doubt — it has been highlighted by a number of Members — that we are very much in an age of austerity in which the block grant, in real terms, has shrunk over the last few years and is likely to shrink again. Again, the temptation for Departments will simply be to see where they can salami-slice what they have at present and not make any radical change. I believe that what is contained in this Budget is the opportunity for the much greater change that has been highlighted.”
“<BR /> <BR />Given the Budget process that is facing us, including some of the constraints and because this is the last full year of this Assembly, I think there was a great temptation for the Finance Minister to essentially take what has happened with previous Budgets and simply roll it forward, with no cognisance of any need for change. There was a temptation to tread water. I do not believe that we are faced with that today. As I highlighted on previous occasions, many of the initiatives that are being put into effect through the Budget, such as the change fund and other funds that have been located, or the broader reform of public services and the embracing of a voluntary exit scheme, for example, show a commitment to radically looking at things again.”
“<BR /> <BR />Another issue that was raised by the Chair of the Committee — I appreciate that he was speaking in a personal capacity — was about ensuring that policies are rural proofed. While I think that is important, we need to ensure, not just with the wider Budget but with departmental spend, that we have equitable spending across Northern Ireland. To that end, we often hear about the needs of various city communities, understandably enough, and we hear about rural needs. Those of us who come from suburban Northern Ireland and who do not really fit into either of those categories would make a case that we should not be left behind as a result. Rather than pigeonhole ourselves into particular locations, we need to ensure that, across the board, we have equitable spending.”
“The reality is that the value of any change will only really be gained through the way that each Department deals with its Committee — if they operate in a full, open and transparent manner as well. <BR /> <BR />Obviously, when we get into the fourth debate in the space of six or seven weeks, there is a major challenge for any of us, particularly those on the Finance Committee who have probably spoken in each of those debates, to find something novel to say — dare I say it, to find something interesting to say. That is a challenge that I have no intention of meeting. I can reassure the House that I will not be saying anything either novel or interesting today. I will try to stick to that mantra throughout.”