David McNarry
Strangford · Ulster Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“I am somewhat astounded — actually, flabbergasted — by the amounts. These are fines and penalties. The Minister said little about the reasons or whether there had been repetitive failures. Given that she might elaborate on that, can she also tell us what, in fact, she is doing to stop future fines and penalties of this nature?”
“Being ahead of the Minister is certainly something. Will he say that, as the Housing Executive cannot borrow money and housing associations are already heavily committed financially, he will not propose high rent increases, regardless of whether he has got this report today?”
“I suspect that most if not all people in pain do not give a toss or care who does the procedure at the end of the day. Will the Minister tell the House what the cost differences between the private sector and the public sector work out as?”
“Unlike some, those parents, knowing fine well what the opportunities may have been for their baby but nevertheless facing the shock of stillbirth, wanted to give their baby a chance. We have no right to bestow on ourselves as legislators the making of laws that promote terminations, as listed in this amendment.”
“It has not required, and still does not require, a new meaning, as some would want to give it today. What has altered? It is emotional, and, at times, that is understandable. Emotions have sadly been drawn into it.”
“This is where the fancy-worded tampering amendments like this, and others that will surely follow if we pass this, will end up. <BR /> <BR />Mr Speaker, just digressing for a moment, with your indulgence, it is close to the subject for the Health Minister's proposed task team, which I welcome.”
The complete record
Every one of 216 lines we hold for David McNarry, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 5.
“I trust that the Minister will agree that it is a no-brainer, with energy gold under our own feet, not to use it. Will he say, in the light of his previous answers, what new funding his Department could bid for after 23 June for the development of energy?”
“I thank the First Minister for her answer and ask her whether she considers it premature to upgrade border patrols and the rounding up of terrorist suspects.”
“I am somewhat astounded — actually, flabbergasted — by the amounts. These are fines and penalties. The Minister said little about the reasons or whether there had been repetitive failures. Given that she might elaborate on that, can she also tell us what, in fact, she is doing to stop future fines and penalties of this nature?”
“Being ahead of the Minister is certainly something. Will he say that, as the Housing Executive cannot borrow money and housing associations are already heavily committed financially, he will not propose high rent increases, regardless of whether he has got this report today?”
“I suspect that most if not all people in pain do not give a toss or care who does the procedure at the end of the day. Will the Minister tell the House what the cost differences between the private sector and the public sector work out as? Will he say why, he believes, the spare capacity in the private sector is sitting there and not being matched by the NHS? Minister, why do we have the worst record for stillbirths, as reported on the news today? Is that anything to do with a lack of resources?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Maybe you might give a ruling. When a Member speaks in debates such as this he should do factually and should not introduce matters that are not factual and that I contradict. My leader may have those views, but UKIP, as a party, does not.”
“We must not take upon ourselves the decision of deeming an interpretation of imperfection to mean terminating a baby.”
“Unlike some, those parents, knowing fine well what the opportunities may have been for their baby but nevertheless facing the shock of stillbirth, wanted to give their baby a chance. We have no right to bestow on ourselves as legislators the making of laws that promote terminations, as listed in this amendment. We cannot support such promotion. We cannot take it upon ourselves to deny a baby life, even for minutes, and we cannot offer the parent that early disposal of their baby through termination without seriously offering them that precious moment of holding the baby they have given birth to. It is just not right. <BR /> <BR />I ask the House to vote against the amendment not just in our name as legislators but, if I may presume, in the name of all babies, who deserve the right to live and to be loved, no matter for how long.”
“This is where the fancy-worded tampering amendments like this, and others that will surely follow if we pass this, will end up. <BR /> <BR />Mr Speaker, just digressing for a moment, with your indulgence, it is close to the subject for the Health Minister's proposed task team, which I welcome. I asked him to include the other misfortunates: the devastating and distressing impact that stillbirths have on parents. We are told that nearly 4,000 babies are born dead in the United Kingdom each year. No figure is given for Northern Ireland, but I fear that we do not escape here. Here we have mothers and fathers not thinking for any reason, and far less considering termination, finding that their baby has survived until birth, only to be born dead. Those are parents determined to give their baby a life.”
“She would be described as having serious and severe difficulties in speech, mobility, decision-taking and general function. She is my 73-year-old sister-in-law, and I have known her for over 50 years. I love her and care for her despite what some would call her imperfections. She is very much alive. She is a character. To me and her family she is very much also a real person. Seventy-three years ago she was given the opportunity to live her life. Her parents did that. We have all benefited, in this family of ours, through knowing and living with this very dear person. <BR /> <BR />I worry where this will take us. Go with this amendment and you put the law on the slippery slope of termination of babies as I have described.”
“This bit is a bit personal, so indulge me my emotions if they arise. This step, if we take it today, will, without a shadow of doubt, be manipulated and make it easy — and I emphasise "easy" — to terminate babies known to be born as, in the assessment of some, imperfect. In my opinion, putting the assessment of clinicians in the frame as judges and arbitrators in the decision and advice stakes of what is a perfect or imperfect baby cannot be done. <BR /> <BR />Who becomes the lawful decision-taker in the determination and definition of imperfection? Are we deciding this evening for the unborn baby? A baby was born 73 years ago who may be called imperfect today. She is alive and very well. She would be described as disabled — the point my colleague Mr Allister made earlier.”
“Let me caution that, if the vote is to agree the amendment and introduce the new clause now, once the rush to manipulate on the back of such changes has taken place, it will be turned into abortion on demand.”
“It has not required, and still does not require, a new meaning, as some would want to give it today. What has altered? It is emotional, and, at times, that is understandable. Emotions have sadly been drawn into it. However, let us admit that the floodgates have opened, and the scaremongering gushing from some parts has led us to this debate. <BR /> <BR />Were the babies of five, 10, 15 or even 50 years ago and their mothers worse or thought less of because of the law? Were the rights then regulating the birth of a baby wrong? No, they were not, nor are they wrong today or are they likely to be wrong tomorrow. The law has served us well. If change persists and is reflected somehow in a vote tonight, I believe that we are heading for the slippery slope of manipulation by petition. That is where amendment No 61 could point us.”
“We have faced many challenges in this Assembly term, and none more so than the issue that we are discussing today. <BR /> <BR />Let me say this: we cannot do this. We just cannot support these amendments. The matter is not a contest. It is unedifying to hear some — from outside, may I say — attempting to turn it into a winner-takes-all prize. We recognise that this is about legislation of meaningful consequence for the unborn child and the mother who is carrying the baby. It cannot be about the yesterdays when our vote is deciding about the tomorrows. <BR /> <BR />The question in my mind, which I resolved in formulating what I was going to say in the debate, is this: what has altered in the passage of time during which this law has operated?”
“I am intrigued by the debate, never having raced a pigeon in my life. I am wondering whether communications in my old party are still carried out by pigeon carrier. On a more serious note, can the Member inform the House of the training element that goes into pigeon racing and the physicality that he is talking about, which I think is a good point? Can he maybe give us an insight as to how long it takes to train a pigeon and what that entails? Are other pigeons involved in that or is it purely human contact?”
“It is pleasing and gratifying to hear the answer from the Minister so far. Will he say whether he has had any reports of discontent on the part of locals that would have a bearing on those who are already here and particularly on those coming in the next tranche of refugees, when they arrive? Will he join me in repudiating those who act with racial prejudice?”
“From your party's perspective, you will be a hard act to follow. So, too, UKIP wishes Arlene Foster well in the role that she will have to address so very soon. <BR /> <BR />Somehow, Peter, I am sure that it will be said often that "you haven't gone away, you know". Wherever this journey takes you, God speed and walk tall, and thanks for what you have done for Northern Ireland.”
“Two out of three is not too bad. In reality, if 'I'm a Celebrity... Get Me Out of Here!' comes knocking, just tell them that you have left the Stormont Executive jungle. I think that you could say that 'Strictly Come Dancing' looks more promising. As you have always said, it takes two to tango. You have certainly proved that. <BR /> <BR />As regards where we are and where we are going, thanks to you, outgoing First Minister, we are still moving on to wherever that is. In a short time, your successor moves in.”
“It is for some to be careful what they might wish for. <BR /> <BR />This afternoon, I use the occasion to wish, very sincerely, good health and good luck to the outgoing First Minister and all the best to Northern Ireland. As First Minister, Peter Robinson was at all times courteous and respectful to me and my party leader in UKIP, Nigel Farage, and that, I am glad to say, was reciprocated. We grew up in politics together. He was, is and, I am sure, will remain a formidable opponent. His progress far outstripped mine and that of most, if not all, of his contemporaries. <BR /> <BR />As for advice, it is time to stop the fags, ditch the booze and cut out the late nights. Well, that is what you told me not so long ago.”
“Happy new year to you, Mr Speaker, and to all our colleagues. It is a fresh start indeed. <BR /> <BR />Last night, I watched the BAFTAs for a very short time. You know where the winners make the crummy speeches and the losers grin through gritted teeth, thinking, "It should have been me"? I am not looking in any particular direction, Mr Speaker.”
“We have just heard the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Minister highlight his concerns about high energy costs. I know that this Minister can be comical in his answers, as I hope he was being when answering Mr Lynch. Has he the full backing of the Executive for his approach, which he outlined to the House, to fracking?”
“The Minister quite rightly pointed out how this issue can be divisive, and one would hope that all efforts would be made to prevent that. Have we reached a position where, in order to increase understanding regarding housing provision, we might need to redefine what he calls "the need" these days?”
“I realise that I am very restricted in this debate from going into my "No guns, no government" argument — where did I hear that so long ago, and where are those people today? — and the shame of an armed army council in control of Sinn Féin in that Government, but it is out there. The motion, in its context and content, is not being given a thought. It is what I said: out there, people do not think that we care any longer, so they do not care about us. Church bells will not ring all over the country to celebrate the transferring of welfare reform to London. As Mr Farry said, the actual doing of the motion in itself represents a monumental failure. Nevertheless, there are vulnerable people who must be taken care of in our country and, perhaps, once we do this, those people will be taken care of.”
“I am swayed by the practicality of the motion, but of course I am not impressed or best pleased, as you might have gathered, with, first, the prevarication, followed by the stand-off, which was all to be rendered impotent by Sinn Féin's feeble rolling over in capitulation last night and endorsing the motion today. Of course it is a motion supporting Tory cuts, and it will be wonderful to read in Hansard tomorrow that Sinn Féin's fingerprints are all over it. <BR /> <BR />I will support the motion because of the practicalities. It is what I wanted to do a year ago, last Christmas, and what we should have done. I caution that people out there are fed up with the lot of us. They cannot believe that what could not have been done last Christmas is actually being done today.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker; I welcome that. These rowdies over here — what are we going to do with them? <BR /> <BR />What I am getting at is this: the transfer of power is a dangerous precedent. It does not resolve things one iota — in this case, overturning Tory policies. In fact, it has done the opposite by reinforcing them. I have always, I trust, been swayed by practical politics, despite the fact that I am usually right.”
“— into the joker's Christmas stocking, Danny.”
“One party even walked out in a huff because it did not trust Sinn Féin. It took eight years to find that out, did it? By the time they recover their ideals and principles, they will have been rewritten by themselves —”
“It is appalling that Sinn Féin has been so prescriptive and one-dimensional in this debate and this argument over welfare reform in defining the identity of the vulnerable. It is obvious that, on the Sinn Féin radar of people in pain, people waiting three or six or nine months for an appointment, let alone relief, are not, in Sinn Féin's eyes, vulnerable. They are not in that category. <BR /> <BR />The motion is the result of where two cannot agree. That is why we have it. It is a cop-out: "Let's send the matter across the water". I actually have no problem with the two combining from here as the only coalition in government in Northern Ireland. As the talks have proved, the other two or three, when it was three, were powder-puff Ministers, holding on to office for kudos.”
“It seems so clear that, on the issue of reforms, the consultative process involving an armed army council could not broker or stand over that Stormont House Christmas agreement, so we have a motion that is worked out to be a massive defeat and a retreat from the bogus stance that no one will lose a penny of their benefits, ever and for all generations. I have heard people saying that that lesson has been learnt, but it was stubbornness and foolhardiness that resulted in that stance, with millions of pounds squandered unnecessarily in payback to London — millions lost that could and would have been of help in alleviating the pain and the suffering of thousands on hospital waiting lists, today and for months, seeking relief.”
“It is actually a move I welcome, because I called for it over a year ago. I called for more fiscal responsibility and a professional watchdog. Of course, the Executive were under no pressure from me. Why would they be? They did not take it under their notice. But Dave Boy came on the scene and, my, how times changed. <BR /> <BR />It is all financial and linked to our financial responsibilities. I fear that devolution is contemplating taking a backward step, not only in resorting to handing power back but, in truth, in finding the Executive wanting in their ability to hold on to power and their refusal to recognise that the sovereign Government and Parliament's right and role in determining welfare proposals are what we have. That is what Sinn Féin rejected a year ago but has to swallow today.”
“In other words, Ministers, you have been caught out; you have been caught on; and you are not to be trusted. The motion is not built on trust; it is built on a bailout. Mistrust is highlighted for us all to see in the formation of a fiscal council that, in effect, is Westminster's watchdog on Stormont, making sure that Ministers and Departments behave themselves in the future.”
“It is stipulated in section D 4.2 of the agreement that the United Kingdom Government — the Tories — will only:”
“It concedes that Stormont has, in effect, lost its financial independence in the sense that it will become primarily an administrative Assembly judged by its paymasters in London on how effectively we manage the money allocated to us. Without doubt, if the move is to transfer the powers by consent, there must also be a pathway to consenting to have the powers returned. I ask whether a date has been thought of or even set between the two-party coalition by which to bring back the powers that we are tossing away. <BR /> <BR />The motion has to be discussed in the round of the debate, and consideration must be given to ancillary issues regarding this agreement that are of legitimate concern to people. There are consequences of transferring power, as in the motion.”
“They did that themselves through the poor and ineffective management of funding that they did not know how best to use or prioritise. It was they who made this country debt-ridden, not yesterday, last month or last year but more than four years ago. They have allowed the management of our money to backslide. I heard it today: they say, "We have done a deal with no further borrowing". Well, jolly good on you. It is a deal quite clearly that has no further borrowing but makes no case to reduce the borrowing that burdens us from expanding our spending needs and developing the economy. <BR /> <BR />In effect, the motion, attached to the spin of success in meeting our welfare reform obligations, clouds the fact of a devolved Government voting to transfer power. Who ever heard the like of it? The motion does that.”
“The people out there are, yet again, bewildered by how easy it is to turn a crisis into a victory, to go from bust to boom in a matter of hours and to move from disaster to survival and rescue. It seems now that the people outside are being asked to believe and buy into all things bright and beautiful flowing from this agreement. It is not true; in fact, far from it. I will resist saying that it is like Christmas presents for the poor, because that would belittle the poor and the needy and disrespect their unfortunate circumstances. However, people, no matter who they are, are really not switched on to the nuances in this place when they can see the darkness. <BR /> <BR />Let me put it this way: it was not welfare reform, cuts to tax credits or Tory cuts that put the Executive into a spin.”
“When people call the encapsulation of welfare reform passing out of our hands a "Fresh Start", let me commend them for their imagination. Let me also condemn the temerity of those using such a falsehood as some kind of progress in the House. When things, in order to reach agreement, hang by such a tenuous strand, they will inevitably be broken when more tension is applied to the weakness so obvious in the presentation of the motion, which, at the moment, seems to be holding strands together. Let no one be fooled that the tensions are resolved in the motion: in reality, is there an undertone in the motion of a final warning from Downing Street?”
“The two-party coalition is clearly not agreed on that; rather, it is asking for consent to strip the Assembly of its powers by taking the decision out of our hands and into the hands of London.”
“In the Assembly, UKIP is the only national party committed to devolved regional autonomy. That is just to emphasise the fact that there are no Tory, Labour or Liberal Democrat Members about this place. <BR /> <BR />As a long-time supporter of the moving-on stakes — longer than some seemingly recent converts — I seem, for the first time, to be at odds with the twist that devolution is taking as a result of yesterday's agreement that carries the day in navigating it between now and next May. I see nothing wrong in the motion before us, which covers the long-overdue consent to welfare reform. However, in truth, the Assembly is not consenting to the introduction of welfare reform.”
“It is not that long ago that we in this House said, "Je suis Charlie" after those murders by ISIS. We in UKIP offer our sincere condolences and sympathy to all those who have been bereaved and saddened by the carnage in Paris. We think that we are right in speaking up for many people to demand that the evil perpetrators be brought to justice and that the horror of Paris is not repeated. <BR /> <BR />I note that COBRA has been meeting to mobilise national security. That includes us. I trust that our cities, towns and villages can be assured that they, too, are protected from attacks by ISIS just as people across the rest of the United Kingdom have that assurance. <BR /> <BR />Our best wishes to Paris. Let us hope that we can all visit it for better times in the future.”
“Does the Member agree that, perhaps within this multicoloured vision, what we are heading towards is multi-developed sites, campuses of 2,000 or 2,500 pupils, brought there, as the Member says, in some form of social engineering? In what he is saying, could the Member address the House on how we might escape from that, in terms of coming back to what his constituency wants, which is very similar to what my constituents are saying on the matter?”
“I appreciate the response from the deputy First Minister and recognise the time constraints that he talks about. Would he have time to confirm that the IRA army council is also consulted routinely in decisions taken by his own office?”
“Will the Minister report back to us on this despairing situation and tell us what Michelin's intention is? Is there a future beyond 2018, and are there production challenges that it is willing to entertain? If not, where are those jobs in Ballymena to take on the skilled workers between now and 2018?”
“I thank the Minister for her frank answer. I accept her assurances and am gratified by them. Rather than cause her any anxieties, has she been made aware of any events funded directly or indirectly by her Department at which admittance money has not been fully accounted for due to the methodology in taking cash on entry?”
“I am absolutely not going to challenge it. Would you accept that I would put that proposition to you again in 15 minutes?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In deference to your authority, I propose that we close the debate and move to the vote now. I do not think that the House will hear anything new, except previous well-aired arguments. This is repetitive; it is the fifth time that the issue has been debated, and, as we all know, we have a petition of concern. There is no point to the debate continuing, and I move that we take the vote now.”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. I asked the question to inform opinion-makers. Will he tell me, as opposed to speculation, what sort of grip his Department has on the relationship between these high immigrant figures and the number of jobs available to local young people aged 16 to 24, some 32,000 of whom are not in employment, education or training?”
“Let us hope that they acquit themselves well. I am sure that they will. Maybe, Mr Speaker, without any consultation or queries, you will allow a debate or motion such as this in May next year.”
“Our congratulations to the team, to the phenomenal manager, to the most brilliant fans that one could ask for, as Chris Lyttle pointed out to us all, to the coaches, who are often not mentioned, and, of course, to the IFA.”
“I did my sciatica no good at all when leaping into the air three times for three goals. I would do it again. Three goals — my word. What a day; what a night. It was a pain worth bearing. <BR /> <BR />Sport is a great equaliser, and we know that it brings people together. More than anything else, that result, the team and its advancement is going to bring our young people together in great numbers to support its success. We can all be supportive, particularly when the team wins, so let us back it to the hilt when it only gets a draw, and let us not contemplate it being defeated. It is a team that Michael O'Neill has put together, and it is a team of winners. <BR /> <BR />UKIP supports sport for all. Top of the group, the green and white army marches onwards to Paris. UKIP's best wishes go with it on that journey.”
“I have no difficulty in sharing the sentiments of this statement and the tragedy that it encapsulates. It has been mentioned, and I want to mention, that a message should be added for the family of the young guard, who was ruthlessly murdered by a dissident republican, who shot a woman, seriously wounding her, and then shot himself. I think that it would be right for the House to couple those sentiments of condolence, which we can send.”