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 9 of 77.
“With the financial aspects of defamation and, indeed, the balance between the plaintiff and the defendant, we do not want, instead of widening accessibility, which is one of the aims of the Bill, to create a perverse incentive and a scenario in which defamation becomes much more the preserve of those who have very large resources. <BR /> <BR />My party and I have concerns. It is only fair to give the sponsor of the Bill the opportunity to outline what commitment he will give to reasonable amendments being made at the next stage and whether he thinks that those could be accommodated. The major concern, which, I think, is shared beyond my party, is clause 1. That is a fundamental flaw in the Bill. Can an amendment to that clause be accepted as part of an overall package that would enable the Bill to go through?”
“The 2013 legislation has not widened access for the ordinary man on the street. Any raising of the bar will act as a deterrent to the next section of people up. It is certainly the case that, since 2013, the mega-rich have effectively been able to take the financial threats of this more casually. If we raise the bar substantially without having any cognisance of the financial impact, it runs the risk of defamation cases becoming much more the preserve of the rich. For example, despite the reform that was made, some of the most recent cases that have been lodged in London are from Russian oligarchs. To be fair, a Russian oligarch should have the same right to protect his or her reputation as anybody else, but, irrespective of where the balance is put, the cost of taking a defamation case is loose change for people like that.”
“From a financial point of view, that is a bigger problem than, if you like, a feeling of financial intimidation among publishers.”
“However, there is nothing in the Bill that correspondingly addresses what, I think, from a financial point of view, is probably the single biggest problem with defamation, which is the extent to which it is seen on both sides as being a rich person's game. While there has been mention of the intimidation of the big publisher, the problem for those who will sometimes be libelled is that, if they are going against a newspaper, a large online presence or, indeed, one of the major broadcast media organisations, they are going against an organisation that can potentially draw on the best lawyers in the country and draw upon millions of pounds. For the ordinary man in the street, that option is not available. One of the other fundamental changes needed to the Bill, if it is to move ahead, is some way to rebalance that side of it.”
“While the Member's preference is clearly for everything that is in the Bill at present to remain, as a party, we are interested in hearing, during his summing-up remarks, whether he sees that as amendable, potentially by removal from the Bill, or whether he sees that as so fundamental to the Bill that he could not countenance that. That is important. <BR /> <BR />This is the final point. While it appears as an aim, it is a little bit weak simply to say, "Here is a list of worthy aims". It is a reasonable enough point to talk about accessibility and, on the one hand, put in place what is there and say that, actually, this means that publishers with deeper pockets are not simply protected and that it goes, if you like, to defendants of a less financially substantial nature.”
“A serious harm test will start to shift that very heavily the other way towards the plaintiff, and lawyers will be saying, "How can we be certain that we will be able to demonstrate serious harm?". Will this act as a major deterrent to people who have been directly libelled or defamed taking that legal action? While I have indicated that I have some quibbles with other aspects of the Bill, that is the most fundamental problem in the Bill at present. It shifts the burden too much against the opportunity for people to defend their reputation. <BR /> <BR />The Member has been open to say that, essentially, if the Bill gets to Committee, he will take on board whatever is raised there.”
“First, the experience in England and Wales, where it has operated, has been that different case law has perhaps produced different standards, so it does not necessarily give certainty to either litigant or defendant. Secondly, the Bill sponsor indicated that we could effectively test whether that raises the bar or not. It strikes me that moving from a situation in which libel itself is actionable per se to a point where serious harm needs to be demonstrated clearly raises the bar, and that, I think, is a key deterrent to those who may potentially take legal action. <BR /> <BR />Mention was made of the calculation that is often done, which is not unique to defamation cases, of, for example, a publisher deciding, "Is it worthwhile me fighting this to the fullest extent? Can I settle out of court?".”
“There is a basic principle in a jury trial, particularly if we are trying to judge what is prejudicial and defamatory in the public mind, of getting 12 men or women together to give a verdict, on behalf of the public as a whole, as to whether something meets a particular threshold. I see certain advantages in that. Again, I am slightly sceptical of that, albeit it is not necessarily the most fundamental issue. <BR /> <BR />It largely comes down to two issues that I have concern about. Specifically, on clause 1, libel has been actionable per se. Rather than giving a greater level of clarity, introducing a test of serious harm has a number of drawbacks.”
“<BR /> <BR />I do not have any problem with clause 6 on peer-reviewed statements, although I am slightly cynical about the belief that there is a horde of academics who have not or will not come to Northern Ireland because they are worried about how they will be challenged in the courts because of the law on peer-reviewed statements. Nevertheless, I am supportive of clause 6. <BR /> <BR />I do not have any particular problem with clause 7, but clause 8 needs to be teased out more. On the issue of jury trials, I understand the argument that there can be simplification and, maybe, an impact on costs, although the principal cost will be from the long trials that involve very expensive lawyers.”
“<BR /> <BR />On clause 5, which deals with the operators of websites, it is important that we create legislation that deals very specifically with social media websites and online presence. While I welcome much of what is in the clause, if we reach the point at which the Bill goes to the Finance Committee for scrutiny, it will be important that there is a key test on whether it goes far enough. This is an opportunity to provide people with greater protection from online libel. If there is a criticism of clause 5, it is that it does not go far enough. Is this an opportunity that we need to take? Does the current wording of clause 5 represent a missed opportunity?”
“I have a concern that some of the clauses, although quite reasonable in and of themselves, incrementally shift the burden against the plaintiff. The sponsor referred to the fact that, effectively, the Bill codifies, in a legislative sense, the common-law defence of justification into a clause that deals with truth. However, it does not quite do that: it shifts the defence from stating that something is true to having to be substantially true. That may be a reasonable change to make, but, again, it shifts things incrementally. <BR /> <BR />Similarly, on the issue of fair comment, the Bill broadly reflects the current law, but, for example, it removes the requirement for the opinion to be a matter of public interest. Again, there is a slight incremental shift in that. Largely speaking, it appears that clause 4 reflects the Reynolds test.”
“<BR /> <BR />On the balance between those two pressures, and I appreciate what some Members have said on this, the question in recent years has been about whether it has started to shift towards giving too much those who would potentially create libels. We have seen the extent to which libel has increased, particularly through social media and, to some extent, what might be described as being a "democratisation" of the process, which has come at a very heavy penalty. We have to bear that in mind when looking at where we have the balance so that there is an opportunity for someone to take a case in the right circumstances and receive justice. <BR /> <BR />I have a suspicion — sorry, suspicion is the wrong word.”
“<BR /> <BR />There are two key issues: finance for both the plaintiff and the defendant and where the balance is between the two, and, as was mentioned, trying to balance the conflicting pressure of ensuring that there is a free press that can act without fear or favour against the need for people to be able to protect their reputations. We should always remember that in existing legislation and common law, it has always been the case, and this is recognised in the legislation, that any comment that is shown to be truthful, fair or in the public interest is always defensible. So, any publication that is printing the truth should never have any fear about a successful claim being made against it for doing so.”
“If I am being cynical, the Act came in at the time of the coalition Government when there was considerable pressure on the press, particularly because of the phone-hacking scandal, and there could have been high levels of additional regulation of the press. Perhaps there is a little bit of cynical belief that that was an attempt by the Government — a quid pro quo — to do something on behalf of the media barons by saying, "At least we are trying to balance this out by making things a bit easier for you in a libel situation". I view the background with some cynicism.”
“To that extent, my party and I are particularly keen to hear what the Bill sponsor says in his summing-up to see whether our concerns can be assuaged or are capable of change. <BR /> <BR />I appreciate that some of this comes down to the dichotomy between those who have a journalistic background or, indeed, are heavily invested in the all-party group. With perhaps a slightly more cynical eye from those of us who come from a legal background, I do not see the 2013 Act as necessarily being the panacea in terms of defamation and libel law as it has at times been presented. Why do I say that? In part because I question the motivation behind the 2013 Act.”
“I suspect that that might have been the message that the Member got just a few moments ago, but I might be speculating. <BR /> <BR />Like Mr Muir and a few others, I am not a member of the Finance Committee. I did, at various stages in previous Assemblies, serve on the Finance Committee. I am, I suppose, the MLA equivalent of a recovering member of the Finance Committee, but I have not had the opportunity to get the detailed information that has been presented to the Finance Committee. <BR /> <BR />I do not think that there is a problem per se in reforming defamation law. I am not fundamentally opposed to looking at the current position and looking to modify, change and codify it. However, I have concerns about the Bill as currently drafted.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. At least, with legislation, we have unlimited time in that regard. It is one thing for the Member to say that there is an aim and that one of the aims is to make this more accessible to people. That is indeed one of the aims but, if the aim is not in any way reflected in the wording of the legislation, it is a relatively poor argument to put forward on the basis that it is left at, "Well, the Finance Committee can do something about this".”
“However, there does not seem to be a great deal in the Bill that addresses the problem that taking a libel action is outside the remit of the vast majority of people. Will the Member address where he sees protections in the Bill, not simply for the litigant who has to defend but, potentially, for the wronged plaintiff for whom much of it is pie in the sky?”
“<BR /> <BR />The Member made an important point about the role of money in this. He mentioned specifically the depth of the publisher's pockets or those of the organisation that is trying to defend the statement. Clearly, the financial consideration will always be examined as part of it. The other criticism around defamation — I cannot see anything in the Bill that corrects it — is that those with very deep pockets who sue a broadcaster, a media outlet or whatever take a certain level of risk but can put their money where their mouth is if they have that amount of money. For many ordinary people, however, if they are libelled, there is little opportunity for them to take very high-stakes, expensive challenges given what the overall costs would be. I am sure that, later, we will debate the jury element.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I appreciate that we may be foxes but I will try not to be too nasty to him. An analogy about a former occupant of the chicken coop may be of relevance. <BR /> <BR />I want to make two points in relation to settlement and the litigant side of things. The Member has indicated that, in a lot of these cases, there is an out-of-court financial settlement. There are others in the Chamber with a far more eminent background in the law than me, such as Mr Allister, although I am sure that modesty would prevent him from suggesting that himself. The legal culture in Northern Ireland, not simply in defamation cases, is that vast numbers of cases are settled by way of an out-of-court settlement and very few cases run to a full length of challenge.”
“<BR /> <BR />These are grave issues on which we need to ensure that we can intervene so that we can provide that level of support and protection for people. I look forward to scrutinising the detail with the Committee. As others have said, it is important that this does not become legislation that sits on a shelf; it must be a living, breathing document. I wholeheartedly support the principles of the Bill and commend it to the House.”
“Clause 16 provides additional support for the victims of trafficking and extends to ensure that victims of sexual exploitation or child labour are protected, and provides the coverall that they will be protected if they do not fall within the cover of those categories, albeit, it is difficult to envisage circumstances where that would be the case. I take on board what has been said and the assurance that has been given by the Minister and officials on clause 17 and the movement towards a three-year strategy, which will mean greater scope and opportunity for the issues to be looked at strategically and implemented. I support the proposition that was put forward by the Committee Chair that there should, perhaps, be an annual monitoring provision, but the strategy should be rolling and able to do that.”
“The second significance of the legislation was the key principle that it established that human beings, whether on the basis of sexual exploitation or enforced labour, are not to be treated as a commodity. They must be respected as a human being and protected as such. Consequently, I welcome the provisions. <BR /> <BR />At this stage, I do not see anything in clauses 16 and 17 that concerns me, but, as a Committee, we will want to see whether any actions can be taken that will further enhance those provisions.”
“Finally, I want to touch on Part 2, which deals with trafficking and exploitation. I was involved in the passage of Lord Morrow's private Member's Bill on human trafficking, back in 2015, as were many in the House. While there are many occasions when people will decry the House, that was one of the most significant pieces of legislation that was passed. It stood as merit to Lord Morrow and, indeed, the House that we stood up for the victims of human trafficking. We stood up in two ways. First, practical arrangements were put in place to provide protection for those who were suffering from human trafficking. Ultimately, as was highlighted in the motion proposed last year by our Chief Whip, Joanne Bunting, there is always more that can be done, but there was that strong practical element to it.”
“Again, we will test the wording of that when we come to examine it in detail.”
“Sadly, that is not a hypothetical example. Many of us who have been involved directly in the law know that court cases, unless you are directly involved, are not a great spectator sport. They can be quite dull at times. Sadly, for sexual offences, there can be a prurient interest, particularly in high-profile cases. It is not simply a question of additional pressure in those cases but that, sadly, in a number of high-profile cases, details that should have been confidential have been leaked. In principle, it is right that there should be the opportunity for the public to be excluded from those court proceedings, very much in line with the Gillen recommendations. <BR /> <BR />Part 3 deals with prevention orders. In principle, I welcome the provision of a form of belt and braces by ensuring a modification to widen slightly SOPOs and VOPOs.”
“That should be done from the point of view of victims, but there have been high-profile media cases, particularly where footage has been leaked from different jurisdictions where there has been an investigation into somebody but not a charge. Quite often nowadays, people tend to think that there is no smoke without fire. We must avoid the situation in which public opinion feels that somebody is guilty of these horrendous crimes prior to a charge. <BR /> <BR />Similarly, given that we know that this can be a very stressful time for the victim and the defendant, I welcome the confirmation, from the discussion that we had with departmental officials, that there is provision that, while there is exclusion from proceedings, a nominated friend or relative will be with that person. No one will be left in the courtroom on their own or isolated.”
“Similarly, on criminal conduct, which is dealt with in chapter 1, while it is hard to comprehend how anyone could come to a different conclusion, if the use of terminology could be wrongly interpreted to potentially assume any blame towards children, and we can change the language to make that clearer, that should be embraced. <BR /> <BR />Chapter 2 deals largely with the Gillen recommendations. Again, while we want to make sure that we get it right, we should have adequate protection for victims so that it does not become a major threat or impediment to those seeking justice. Similarly, that protection is required for defendants pre-charge.”
“<BR /> <BR />One thing that may be difficult to achieve but is significant and that the Committee will want to look at is that the provisions should combat such crimes at the most cutting-edge level. They will allow us to catch up with current developments, and we will want to see whether there are any measures that we can take to future-proof the legislation to make sure that those who seek to use new technology and new techniques are combated. That is particularly welcome in the area of revenge pornography, where we have yet to see the exact wording of the amendment. It is a growing threat, and, as we know, it is not simply that it is used for revenge but that its coercive nature is highly significant.”
“<BR /> <BR />One of the areas that we will want to stress-test is highlighted in the Bill's two proposed headings on the motivations of either sexual gratification or humiliation. While those seem like very sensible approaches, the Committee will want to make sure that the wording on those is right and that the motivation matches the offence. <BR /> <BR />The dangers of the advance of technology are highlighted in the increased sexual grooming of children. The Bill reflects four new offences from the report on child sexual exploitation, where adults try to sexually exploit children through pretending to be a different age. It is important that those issues are tackled as well.”
“I am sure they will both agree that the quality of the legislation is even more important. Therefore, it is important that we stress-test the Bill, as Ms Bradley said, to ensure that the wording is right. <BR /> <BR />I will pick up on the first theme. While the advance of technology has many advantages in a rapidly changing world, its increase creates its own problems. Sadly, we have seen that sexual offenders have used technology to advance their pernicious activity. It is very important that a range of the measures proposed in the Bill help to cover some of that development. Mention was made, particularly on clause 1, of the two additional offences that are being sought for voyeurism through upskirting and downblousing. We can all agree that we need to ensure we can combat offences that could not have occurred 10 or 20 years ago.”
“I rise to indicate that I and my party support the Bill. We support and welcome the principles of the Bill. Although we have yet to see the wording of the three amendments outlined by the Justice Minister, I indicate that, in principle, we will be supportive of those amendments as well. <BR /> <BR />Mention was made of the route the Bill has travelled. I welcome the fact that we have a Bill that is quite focused on sexual offences and trafficking. It means that not only can we in the Assembly find issues we can unite on across the House but we can ensure that those specific issues are given the focus that they require to ensure that we get things right. There was a little bit of discussion, particularly between the Minister and the Chair, about the quantity of legislation.”
“The proposals do not deliver truth, justice or reconciliation. Let us send out a clear signal with a united voice that the House rejects them and that, more importantly, the people of Northern Ireland reject them.”
“With respect to the Prime Minister, peace in Northern Ireland was won by the service and the sacrifice of our security forces and, collectively, at the expense of the lives of over 3,000 military and civilian personnel.”
“They are restricted to summary offences, and, until now, any crime that could be treated as indictable and carried a sentence of six months or more could not be subject to a statute of limitations. Crimes that can be indictable include the failure to notify of the movement of cattle, the unauthorised use of a trademark and taking a vehicle away without consent. Those cannot be subject to a statute of limitations, but, under the proposals, taking a human life will be. Starkly, that is how perverse the proposals are and why we must resist them in a clear and unambiguous manner. <BR /> <BR />Many years ago, it was said that the Battle of Waterloo was:”
“However, it is clear that so unacceptable are the proposals that victims' families have united across the piece to reject them. For many victims' families, their quest for justice will be extremely challenging and less likely to succeed with the passage of time, but it is not the role of the state or of any politician to extinguish that possibility and opportunity. We should listen to and respect the families' voices. More importantly, the Government should listen and withdraw the Command Paper. <BR /> <BR />I will highlight one aspect of the iniquitous proposals. Statutes of limitations are rarely used in British law. They are principally focused on civil cases that, by their nature, do not seek a criminal sanction and, in some cases, on low-level criminal prosecutions.”
“<BR /> <BR />While I welcome the political consensus that has emerged against the proposals, although it is disappointing that the deputy First Minister did not utter one word in reference to the victims of republican terrorism, I think that some parties must bear responsibility in part for their genesis. Measured against the three tests of the sanctity of human life, adherence to the rule of law and equality before the law, the current proposals make what has gone before seem mild. The families of victims of the Troubles reflect the widest possible spectrum of our society in Northern Ireland and beyond. Their loved ones were the victims of a range of perpetrators, and all murders, from whatever source, were wrong. Given the diversity of community backgrounds, victims unsurprisingly often have different views and objectives.”
“The early release of convicted terrorists perverted the criminal justice system and put in place a hierarchy of victims and perpetrators, sending out a clear message to Troubles victims' families through the massively reduced tariff that their loved ones were of less value than victims of other crimes. Sadly, the early release scheme was not the only attempt during the past two decades to circumvent and undermine the criminal justice system. There was also the securing of royal pardons, on-the-run (OTR) letters and wider attempts to negotiate amnesties for republican terrorists at Weston Park.”
“Therefore, how much less right has the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State, whose direct connection with the Troubles was an occasional glimpse of a news story on the television, to impose an unjustifiable amnesty on those families? <BR /> <BR />Growing up during the Troubles taught me three basic principles that are equally relevant today: first, the sanctity of human life; secondly, respect for and adherence to the rule of law; and, thirdly, that everyone should be equal before the law. The clear breach of those three principles through the early release of paramilitary prisoners was one of the principle reasons why I opposed the Belfast Agreement and, to be fair, why, I think, some who supported it did so with extreme reluctance.”
“As someone who was born in 1968, I can rightly be described as "a child of the Troubles". Fortunately, more recent generations have been able to enjoy their childhoods with much greater peace and freedom. I can be thankful that, due to the dedication and service of the security forces, who ensured that our country did not descend into greater chaos and anarchy, I was sheltered from the worst excesses of the Troubles. I am also grateful that, like the proposer of the motion, I did not lose any close family members to the ravages of terrorism. That is one reason why I feel I have no moral authority to in any way circumscribe or curtail the rights of the families of victims of the Troubles.”
“In clause 7, in planning for the establishment of a new school, as the Member will be aware, the route for that establishment, when it is a Catholic maintained school, is through a development proposal brought forward by the CCMS. It therefore does the planning for the establishment. Approval will be given, or not, by the Minister at a later stage, but the planning for the establishment is done by the CCMS itself. That it is the managing authority for staffing issues is irrelevant: it is the planning authority.”
“Defining a couple of areas that are not special circumstances but giving no indication of what are special circumstances is simply a recipe for court challenges and court decisions. It is doing so on the flimsy basis of having no real guidance in the legislation on what counts as special circumstances.”
“It means treating parents with respect when they make choices for their children and that no choice is presented as superior to another. If you believe in all of that, if you want to ensure that we have a cost-effective and coherent system and if you want to see sharing and integration in this society, it is not enough to make a range of criticisms of the Bill, particularly given some of the language in it. The Bill, unfortunately, is fundamentally flawed, and I urge Members to vote against it. Let us move forward with the NDNA commitment to the independent review.”
“You will find that the report was produced and published while I was Minister, but the review was commissioned by the previous Minister, Mr O'Dowd, who will admit to that. <BR /> <BR />The point is that that review focused on a single aspect of our education system. All five Executive parties signed up to NDNA — I appreciate that a few representatives who are not members of the Executive parties are here today — and agreed to the full terms of the independent review, including aspects that would supersede previous reports. Anyone who believes in a strategic review of education does not take one aspect in a piecemeal fashion and try to drive it forward. <BR /> <BR />If you believe in equality and having a genuine level playing field for all sectors, it means no child gaining an advantage from the set of school gates that they go through.”
“They say that such-and-such a clause is terrible and that, because of their concern, they want changes to be made. However, they then say that they are happy to support the concept. It is clear that, across the board, many Members want to make major changes to the Bill. I put down this marker to Members: once you accept the full principles of the Bill, you severely limit the amendments that you can table. If Members genuinely have that range of concerns, if they genuinely believe that the reform of education should be done in a strategic manner, if they genuinely believe that all our children — .”
“While some seemed to wrap up by saying, "We think it's a reasonable enough Bill. Let it go forward", they lacerated the Bill from one end to the other. Almost all the speeches that I have heard, with the honourable exception of those of the representatives of the Alliance Party, who are strongly in favour of it, have essentially highlighted the problems.”
“The point is that there is the right to choose. The Member asked, "Why not an integrated school?" Yes, why not an integrated school? Why not a maintained school? Why not a controlled school? The Bill says that you disregard, from an efficiency point of view, any spare capacity. We will simply build more schools for the sake of facilitation. The Member may shake her head: it is there in black and white, as is the issue of area planning. It should be about meeting the needs of areas and the demands of parents. Simply saying that a new school has to be of a particular type means that you put down barriers to any form of new school, regardless of the desire of parents locally, the overall mixture in an area or what is sensible in an area. <BR /> <BR />I have listened carefully to Members' comments.”
“That is why it is fundamentally wrong that cognisance is not given to demographics, particularly in new schools and when looking at efficiency on the basis of existing school spaces. That is one of the most painful activities that any Education Minister has to do from time to time. There is an acceptance that there are probably too many school buildings across our school estate. That means that we do not have efficiency. I see the Member nodding her head, but she would create new buildings without regard to existing spare places.”
“If, due to demographic pressure, a new primary school is built in an area that is overwhelmingly of one community, will we create a situation where, instead of a mixing of our young people, schools will be artificially badged as integrated schools, irrespective of whether the numbers provide a level mix? <BR /> <BR />The Bill's proposer indicates rightly that polls show that most people want their children's schools to have a mixture of backgrounds and faiths. That is perfectly fine. However, to create a situation that utterly disregards the overall composition of an area drives a coach and horses through the idea of getting a mix or any level of mix and means that we will be observing the name of integrated education but, in practice, simply ratcheting up the figures.”
“In area planning, we should try to find greater cohesion between the sectors rather than simply trying to promote one sector above all others. <BR /> <BR />Finally, I do not see how the overall proposal is advantageous to integration, because, on two occasions, the Bill explicitly states that looking at the demographics of an area will be barred in the establishment of new schools or the meaning of promotion. There is an earlier requirement that suggests that there should be reasonable numbers from both communities. Take, for example, a new school. We know what factors are not to be treated as special circumstances.”