Philip McGuigan
North Antrim · Sinn Féin · Northern Ireland
“I concur with the Minister that patient safety is ultimately the top priority, but patient safety is also important, as the Member said, in terms of assessments. If you cannot get assessments, your safety is compromised.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to my party colleague's point of order about the DUP's internal investigation, what is the point of doing an investigation if you are telling us that you have nothing to answer for? You were the leader of the DUP at a time when accusations were levelled against Jeffrey Donaldson.”
“Minister, in your previous answers you talked about the pressures and the difficulties. You said that you were looking for a fair funding model, and you spoke of the need for taxpayers here to be treated equitably.”
“Minister, the inquiry found systematic abuse, neglect and serious governance failure at Muckamore Abbey Hospital over many years — failures that were not isolated incidents but reflected systematic issues across leadership, staffing, safeguarding and oversight that resulted in decades of physical and psychological abuse.”
“When I engage with health service sectors as my party's health spokesperson, there is not one that does not talk about workforce pressures and problems with staff recruitment and retention. That is clearly the case with doctors.”
“First Minister, you have spoken previously about the opportunities created as a result of our unique economic and trading position and about the increased potential that comes with all-island cooperation.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,633 lines we hold for Philip McGuigan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 26 of 33.
“A further benefit would be bicycle hire shops. <BR /> <BR />The people who are responsible for organising the petition understand that the greenway project is about much more than creating a 30-kilometre route along the old Moyle railway line. The 1,123 people who signed the petition know the potential value of the greenway to them, the community in North Antrim and the current and future businesses in the towns and villages on its route. They know the potential for children and families, who will have a safe, clean and green place to exercise their physical and mental health. It is because they know all that that they want to translate that potential into action. They want the Department for Infrastructure to work closely with the council in order to make the greenway a reality and to do so without delay.”
“I am presenting this online petition, which was created by a group of concerned citizens who title themselves the Ballycastle to Ballymoney Greenway Supporters' Club. <BR /> <BR />As I said, the petition is online and contains 1,123 signatures. I am submitting it today for the attention of the Infrastructure Minister, but it will also go to Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council, as both have a part to play in shaping funding and realising the project. <BR /> <BR />The petition states:”
“Threats at Larne and Belfast ports, or against elected representatives and others, will not change any of that. In the Chamber, we need to use our time wisely and calmly to resolve any issues that we can in the Irish protocol to allow freer trade east-west and along this island. We need to stand collectively against these threats and deal with the issues at hand through the mechanism of politics and nothing else.”
“The workers from Mid and East Antrim Borough Council and DAERA need to be back at work as quickly as possible to carry out the necessary checks so that further frustration is not caused at our ports. <BR /> <BR />My colleague Declan McAleer, the Chair of the AERA Committee, has also requested meetings with DAERA so that we can establish the facts and get the issues resolved as soon as possible. <BR /> <BR />Politicians in the Chamber must use language responsibly and draw the heat out of the situation. I am curious about what Mr Allister said. He seemed, on the one hand, to be condemning those who were issuing threats, but, on the other hand, asking the AERA Minister and officials to break international treaties and the law in some way. The Member needs to clarify that. <BR /> <BR />Brexit is a reality and so is the protocol.”
“I thank Stewart Dickson for bringing the Matter of the Day to the Chamber. I also send my best wishes to Edwin Poots and his family through this difficult time. As Deputy Chair of the AERA Committee, I look forward to working with Gordon Lyons in what, hopefully, will be a short time frame. <BR /> <BR />I condemn the threats against workers at Larne and Belfast ports. There can be no place for threats such as these, from wherever they emanate. They need to be lifted immediately. Everyone should be able to go to their work free from fear and intimidation. I spoke to the police this morning and requested further meetings. The PSNI needs to identify and establish quickly who is responsible for the threats and to take action against those responsible.”
“— and immediately calls a halt to the closure of Barnish Primary School.”
“— I hope he shares the views of the 1,867 local people who signed this petition —”
“— separated from their friends, in these circumstances is cruel and unfair. I ask the Minister to, at the very least, wait until the pandemic is over and place a moratorium. I hope that the Minister shares my view. Better than that —”
“We have no idea what life is going to be like in September 2021. We do not know what school settings will be like or what class sizes will be. Will social distancing be ever present? How will children be taught? Will large class sizes make this more difficult? In the midst of that general worry, felt by every pupil and parent across the North, to ask the parents in Carey to start looking for other schools is wrong, and to ask the children at that school to move to a different school setting —”
“That is clear from the thoughts and words left on this petition and the comments left one after another by past pupils, teachers past and present, parents of pupils who themselves were taught at Barnish and, indeed, grandparents who have witnessed their whole clan taught in that school, all praising the standard of education and how that school looked after and looks after children and prepares them for the world after leaving, and showing how fearful they are now about the closure and what it will mean for the children and the community as a whole. The words "fear", "worry", "decimation" and "devastation" are used repeatedly. <BR /> <BR />Throughout this difficult year, I guess that by now the Minister of Education has learned that, during a health pandemic, you cannot hold dogmatic views on decisions affecting our schools.”
“That relief did not last long, unfortunately, with a decision being announced last month to close the school this coming August. <BR /> <BR />I represent a rural constituency that has many rural small schools. I totally understand that schools are and must be centres of quality education. I totally understand too that they must be run efficiently and cost-effectively, but policies must allow flexibility and we must consider each case on its merits to ensure that schools are not closed without having fully explored every possibility of keeping them open. <BR /> <BR />Barnish Primary School is much more than a building. It is the heartbeat and focal point of that local community.”
“It should also be said that the campaign has the support of all political parties locally. <BR /> <BR />In the midst of all the uncertainties brought about by the COVID health pandemic, there was a sigh of relief when August 2020 came and went without the school doors closing.”
“The petition that I present was organised by the Barnish Action Group and signed by 1,867 people. All of them are asking the Education Minister to reverse the decision to close Barnish Primary School in Carey, in my constituency of North Antrim. The threat of school closure has hung over the rural community of Carey for a number of years. As is often the case for many small rural schools, instead of the school being allowed to grow to meet enrolment targets, bureaucratic decisions were made on the basis of funding, transport and nursery provision that sometimes serve only to stifle growth and allow the closure debate to grow legs. The Department of Education's decision in November 2019 to close the school in August 2020 was met with a vociferous local campaign to keep it open.”
“Amendment No 42 defines what a statutory obligation is and protects special advisers who, in carrying out their duty, may be required to carry out their work outside the jurisdiction. Again, even with the amendments, the clause that creates the offence could have dire consequences for the workings of government. <BR /> <BR />I finish my remarks by once again asking that Members closely consider the consequences of enacting the Bill as it stands and asking whether we really need to bind ourselves in a straitjacket in that way.”
“The amendment also inserts a provision that requires that appropriate levels of detail are recorded when taking notes of meetings. Otherwise, civil servants could be found to have broken the law for not recording every level of detail in a relevant meeting, even if that information was inconsequential. Even in its fixed state, the clause will add much more bureaucracy than is needed. Departments will be required to police the new system. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 38 to 42 relate to clause 10, which creates a new criminal offence of the unauthorised disclosure of official information for improper benefit. The clause is flawed and assumes that any kind of financial benefit must be improper. We know that that is not always the case.”
“Corrupt behaviour can be hard to police, as we saw in the RHI scandal. What is needed is an attitude change in which all those who are in positions of power have due regard for the office that they hold and respect for the people whom they represent. <BR /> <BR />I turn to the amendments at hand. Amendment No 22 deals with clause 6, which is flawed in its current state. The clause does not even define what a meeting is, and remember that there is no scope for interpretation once this becomes law. A meeting could be someone stopping you for a chat outside Mass or a supermarket and mentioning government business. The amendment sets the parameters of what constitutes a relevant meeting and tidies up clause 6 so that it is workable.”
“I will just point out that Mr Allister and I, as constituency colleagues, have worked and agreed on plenty of issues. For example, we have agreed time and again on the scandalous behaviour of the DUP MP in North Antrim when he was found to have broken the Westminster code of conduct. <BR /> <BR />To reiterate a point made by the Minister, the Bill is not filling a vacuum in reform. Codes of practice have been strengthened. The Executive subcommittee has started its work on implementing the RHI recommendations. Let us not forget that at no stage did Justice Coghlin, after rigorous investigation of the issues that led to the DUP-led RHI scandal, recommend legislation in his report. It should also be said that legislation will not necessarily be the deterrent that the Bill sponsor hopes that it will be.”
“I was just about to turn my bicycle around to get to the point. <BR /> <BR />Sinn Féin will support many of the amendments in group 2. In this morning's debate, we reiterated the point that the Bill is unnecessary and could constrain the work of government. To clarify, Mr Wells laboured on the point that I made about Mr Allister's opposition to the Good Friday Agreement and all that flowed from that, including power-sharing and this institution, and he said that that was the sole reason for Sinn Féin's opposition to the Bill. That is not the case. We said that at the time, and I reiterate it. I do not believe that Mr Allister has had a road to Damascus transformation and suddenly wants Stormont to work. That said, Sinn Féin does. We want good government, and our opposition to the Bill is on that basis.”
“Go ahead. He is going to come up with a French term for that.”
“It is always difficult to speak on any subject after my constituency colleague Paul Frew, because I stand up forgetting what we are talking about. The majority of his conversation had nothing to do with the Bill. In the midst of it, I went off into a wee daydream about warmer days and being out cycling. As people know, I am a keen cyclist. One of the skills of cycling in a bike race is to sit behind others who break the wind for you. You then have to account for only 60% of the energy, they say. The term for those who come to the front and shield the rest from the wind is "domestiques". As Mr Frew was speaking, I was thinking to myself that we really need a phrase for those in the Chamber who do the opposite of breaking the wind and create wind.”
“Retrospectively invalidating an appointment leaves open the possibility of legal challenge over remuneration for work already done. The amendment provides for immediate rather than retrospective termination, and that is just one example of the short-sightedness of the Bill. There are many others, of course, and I finish by reiterating that the Bill is not necessary.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 8 deals with the problematic clause 1, subsection 4, which renders the appointment of a special adviser of no effect, if the appointing authority does not adhere to the code of appointment outside the Civil Service (Special Advisers) Act 2013.”
“The Member obviously has not been listening to my contribution. My opposition is not because of the Bill's sponsor. The Bill itself is unnecessary and unwieldy. It is bad legislation. All that has been pointed out, and the proposed amendments are, in some way, an attempt to mitigate it. Amendment Nos 3 and 4, for example, will reassert the primacy of the Minister over the special adviser. Special advisers are political appointments, and Ministers are, therefore, granted full discretion in their appointments. That is why spads should not be subject to the Civil Service disciplinary procedures. The Minister is ultimately accountable for the actions of the special adviser and should, therefore, have full discretion when it comes to disciplining spads, including removal from the post, should that be necessary.”
“As others have said, many of the amendments are technical in nature and are designed to fix unfortunate or ill-conceived wording, provide greater clarity and indeed cover —.”
“I made the point, the last time, about the title of the Bill. I have made it already. The title is, "Functioning of Government" and, in my view, the Bill's sponsor is not bringing it forward to enhance the functioning of Government. That point has already been made. <BR /> <BR />My party colleague made a really good point about the mitigations and amendments brought forward by the Minister, when he described Brexit. That is a situation similar to the one that we are in with this Bill. Supporting these amendments, as I have said, does not indicate support for the Bill. It is, rather, an attempt to mitigate the worst aspects of it, should it pass. <BR /> <BR />The Minister has already outlined, in great detail, the substance of the amendments, and I echo much of what he has said about them.”
“<BR /> <BR />Supporting the amendments does not, in itself, indicate support for the Bill; rather, it is an attempt to mitigate the worst and most damaging aspects of it, in the event that it should pass.”
“Over many years, I have listened to the sponsor speak in relation this House, these institutions and the Good Friday Agreement. Never once have I heard him speak positively about the outworking of any of the institutions. As I say, he makes no secret of his opposition, quite the opposite. Despite Mervyn Storey's allusion to a road to Damascus change, I doubt very much that the Bill's sponsor has changed his opinion on this institution. <BR /> <BR />We have said from the outset that the Bill is unnecessary, and that must also be stated today. The amendments, though, will mitigate some of the most problematic clauses in the Bill and, I hope, ensure that any legislation that may emerge does not inhibit Ministers from delivering the good and efficient government that we should all want to see in this institution.”
“That is an issue for all parties. NDNA is an agreement, and not every party got everything that it asked or wished for. <BR /> <BR />As I and others have pointed out in this and other debates, even the name of the Bill as the Functioning of Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill is ironic, in that its sponsor's intentions are, in all likelihood, that it should cause dysfunction in the work of the Government, Ministers and spads, and strangle effective government.”
“As my party colleague has said, Sinn Féin will support most of the amendments in group 1. He outlined the politics of why we continue to oppose the Bill. We have been consistent in that approach from the outset and do not believe that the Bill is necessary. I listened to Paul Frew talk about reform coming from the Executive. However, in the context of the Bill, the issue was dealt with and agreed by all parties in NDNA, and, as Matthew O'Toole has said, the Minister has brought forward reform and changes and is working on further reform of the issue. <BR /> <BR />Jim Allister has named the Bill —.”
“Does the Member agree that it is ironic that we are listening to a five-minute lecture about the appropriate behaviour of Ministers and political parties given that this whole topic has come about because of the inappropriate behaviour of Ministers and Members of political parties on the opposite Benches?”
“Minister, there have been a number of references to and questions about paragraphs 10 and 11 of your statement, which are about cooperation on animal health, and I will follow on from Mr Bradley's question on avian flu. You have talked about the different strategy for TB in the South and about cooperation in the North between farmers and suppliers when dealing with avian flu. Can you give an update on your Department's joint efforts with the AFM Minister in the South to tackle avian flu and TB?”
“Minister, I have found some good news in the pages of your statement. I welcome the fact that funding has been allocated to enable work finally to begin on Casement Park. Certainly, that will be welcome news for Gaels in County Antrim and right across Ulster and Ireland, and I look forward to spending many days supporting my club of Dunloy there when it is built. As others said, essentially, what you are proposing is a rollover of this year's Budget into next year. As you said, it is a very difficult Budget settlement, for all the reasons that you outlined. Is it your intention to carry out a more strategic review of future Budget allocations?”
“Yes. Does the Minister agree with me that weak labour protections within the trade and cooperation agreement could negatively impact on those involved in the fishing industry moving forward?”
“The internecine combat between the TUV and the DUP is very interesting and it was exceedingly ironic to hear Paul Givan, who has just left the Chamber, accusing others of pursuing decisions on the dogma of political ideology. Brexit is a serious issue, and it was a serious issue when it was being pointed out to the DUP by businesses, traders and political parties in this Chamber over the last number of years.”
“Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. I thank the Minister. I welcome the answer and the progress made so far on the roll-out of the digital justice strategy. As the Minister said, it is a five-year strategy, but there were commitments in the first two years to bringing about changes that would undoubtedly make a huge difference in speeding up the criminal justice system. Will the Minister confirm whether the progression of the constituent parts that she has outlined and the strategy as a whole will meet its target?”
“Minister, given that major events have the potential to drive participation in sport and contribute to trade, tourism, business, community pride, community engagement and economic growth, will you give a commitment that you will look at the issue and work towards bringing the Tour de France back to Ireland?”
“Minister, I noted in the press yesterday that the Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media in the South, Catherine Martin, responded positively when asked by a TD if she would consider extending an invitation to Ireland to the organisers of the Tour de France. Minister, I hope that you will be aware that I submitted a question for written answer on 15 October — nine weeks ago — which I resubmitted on 2 November, asking whether, given the success of the Giro d'Italia Grande Partenza in 2014, you would work with your ministerial counterpart in the South, Catherine Martin, whom you met at this meeting, to put together a bid to bring the Tour de France to Ireland, in particular to my constituency along the north coast and the glens of Antrim.”
“I thank the Minister for his statement and welcome the announcement, as, I am sure, will many in the community and voluntary sector. I particularly welcome the fact that multi-year funding is attached to the announcement — grants of £100,000 for up to three years — because that addresses a particular complaint that many groups and organisations have about applying for grant funding. Another common complaint is excessive bureaucracy. Will the Minister make a commitment that there will not be unnecessary red tape associated with applications to the fund?”
“Like everybody else, I welcome the announcement and information on the Ulster canal greenways. I am a bit jealous of Pat getting out on his bike yesterday. The rural roads of North Antrim were very frosty yesterday, but the gritting of rural roads is an issue for another day. Can the Minister update the House on the Ulster canal restoration works, particularly phase 2 of the project, and when it is estimated that the restoration of the canal to Clones will be built?”
“<BR /> <BR />The offences and accompanying punishment are entirely unnecessary, disproportionate and betray the real intent of the Bill: to criminalise those who operate our power-sharing arrangements, whether Ministers, advisers or civil servants. Those clauses would make the functioning of government, the difficult job of the power-sharing Executive, even more challenging. That is the very point and purpose of the Bill: to undermine power-sharing and disrupt the functioning of government. From start to end, even in its title, the legislation is wrong and should be opposed. Sinn Féin will oppose the Bill whether its clauses are amended or unamended.”
“Ministers and advisers would be under constant threat of criminal charges for trying to do their jobs effectively in pressurised situations when they should be focused on the job in hand and not worrying about some minor, but, in the context of this Bill, criminal, error. <BR /> <BR />These are not abstract or outlandish possibilities. The Human Rights Commission raised serious concerns about them when it gave evidence at Committee Stage, and others stressed in their evidence the importance of proportionality. The proposed clause or amendment does not address the problems of proportionality, and it was clear, in the commission's view, that creating a specific set of criminal offences was neither necessary nor proportionate.”
“Clause 11 would make it an offence for a Minister or special adviser to pass confidential government information to non-governmental sources. Such an offence would warrant a criminal conviction. <BR /> <BR />There are two major issues with the Bill. The first is the severe risk, which has already been pointed out, that would result from entirely reasonable actions, which this legislation would render unlawful and open to criminal conviction: for example, using a borrowed phone, laptop or printer to conduct urgent business outside office hours. Those involved in government will know that, often, business is not confined to convenient office hours. I say that as we sit here at 11.00 pm. <BR /> <BR />Of course, genuine mistakes are easily made with ever-developing and changing technology.”
“I watched with close interest the proceedings of the RHI inquiry and have read the report, and, like many members of the public, I think that it is clear where the responsibility and blame lies for RHI, like Red Sky and all the other scandals that have been mentioned here today. <BR /> <BR />In the third group of amendments, clauses 9 and 11 would create two new criminal offences. Clause 9 would make it a criminal offence for a Minister or special adviser to conduct government business on non-governmental systems, such as personal email or phone. Such an offence in the Bill would warrant a criminal conviction of up to two years in jail. Clause 11 would make it —.”
“<BR /> <BR />I am not sure that this Bill will save New York from another late-night rendition of 'Breakfast at Tiffany's', although, if it did, it might give some purpose to this otherwise unnecessary and vexatious piece of legislation. The very sensible and necessary recommendations of the RHI inquiry are being implemented in full and in a way that Judge Coghlin suggested. The proposer of the Bill is rubbishing the reform recommendations and the new code of conduct before they have been tested and, as I said earlier, on the basis that the old code was ignored by one party in the Chamber. <BR /> <BR />The third group —”
“Of course, all of this is wishful thinking. It is a fantasy that only Mr Allister and a few increasingly delusional followers and fellow travellers indulge themselves in. Unfortunately, having listened to some of the contributions today, it is clear that there are a few of those fellow travellers in this House, Members who have waxed long and lyrical about the faults of the Executive. Indeed, some had the joint position of First Minister. <BR /> <BR />Some of those Members who spoke with feigned indignation are blind to the reality that the RHI inquiry was necessitated by the actions of their own Ministers and special advisers, and the only serious wrongdoing identified by that inquiry was on the part of their party Members, whether Ministers or advisers.”
“He is unremitting in his crusade to turn back the tide of history and reassert the glory days of discrimination, sectarian domination and unionist one-party rule in this floundering political entity, itself based on a gerrymandered partition of the island.”
“Despite the claims that the Bill is about better government, I am not naive enough to believe that the sponsor of the Bill, Mr Allister, has, to keep the biblical quotations from earlier going, had a road to Damascus epiphany. I do not think that he wants to see our Executive working better, and I do not believe that he is motivated by a new love of power-sharing. <BR /> <BR />Mr Allister's contribution in this institution is based on his relentless negativity about it. He is unapologetic in his opposition to the Executive, in his opposition to power-sharing and in his efforts to undermine the Good Friday Agreement and the peace process that built that historic agreement.”
“A lot of the subject matter discussed and debated, as the Minister pointed out, is based on a different period — one that led to RHI — and not on the situation as it is now. As colleagues of mine have said, the Bill is not about good governance or improving the functioning of government, as its title benignly suggests. Mr Wells pointed out that we voted against the short title in Committee and rightly so, because, although it is an innocent-sounding title, behind it lies an intent to undermine the functioning of government in what is an already extremely difficult situation, given the challenges of mandatory coalition. The Bill is about undermining the Executive and the Assembly and making it more difficult to deliver for people. Am I surprised that that is the approach from Mr Allister? No.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. You called me while I was googling "opposite of the big beast" so that I would not be offended if I were interrupted by Jim Wells. Anyway, I stand, as a meek kitten, to make my contribution. Tá lá fada agus díospóireacht fhada againn inniu. Tá mé tuirseach anois, agus, mar sin de, beidh m'óráid gairid. It has been a long day and a long debate. There have been some long contributions, and, at this stage I am tired and wary of the promise from my party colleague, so I will try to keep my contribution short. <BR /> <BR />I am not exaggerating when I say that I have heard little in the debate that has been anything other than predictable.”
“I find the comments of the Member from North Antrim bizarre given, first of all, the behaviour of the MP from his party in that constituency in relation to transparency and accountability, and also given the fact that the RHI inquiry has come about because of the misdemeanours, behaviour and wrongdoing of DUP Ministers and spads.”