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 3 of 5.
“I thank the Member who brought this matter before the House to allow us to join with the rest of the world in expressing our views on this tragic event. I join with all that has been said in the House this afternoon and have great delight at the united expression of genuine grief. As a father with a daughter and granddaughters in America at this moment in time, this tragedy has struck home, because all sorts of things come into your mind. <BR /> <BR />The sadness of this tragic event is well measured. I appreciate all that has been said in the House. I ask that it be understood that UKIP conveys its deep condolences to the families in our prayers and thoughts at this time of bereavement. We wish them all strength and fortitude in the days ahead.”
“I thank the Minister for her comprehensive response. I was not expecting that when I asked the question. In further benefiting Strangford and all farmers, does the Minister welcome the rejection of proposed EU caps on methane emissions and consider that to be a huge relief for the farmers and, not least, the livestock?”
“— and, in doing so, has emptied the money bank. It is a performance of zero rating.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Department's problem is its reliance on and abuse of in-year monitoring, where the guidelines state explicitly that the Department must not plan on the assumption that bids will be met. It is a strategy designed to fail, and it has failed. That has been the problem with the Department. A loss of confidence as a result of today's motion will not be reversed as long as the Department's financial management wastes millions of pounds of public money, admits that its monitoring bid is undertaken at a risk —”
“Nor is the proposed solution in June monitoring, which proposes to take us from no money to a skeleton service and then on to a minimum requirement service, none of which allays fears about public safety being at risk. <BR /> <BR />On that day, the financial director told me that the £6·6 million bid was being undertaken at a risk, when the Department has known for several years of a deepening Budget crisis — not yesterday or last week but for years. Instead of protecting public safety, it has put in immediate danger the Department's critical routine and statutory legal responsibilities and duties. It has gone for populism at the price of safety.”
“It was not of the standard expected in managing public money. <BR /> <BR />In a week when a so-called fantasy Budget is topical, let me say that the Committee has for months been treated to fantasy projects, spending fantasy money on proposed pet projects put together on the canvas of an artist's impression, projects with guesstimated costs, downloaded on costs. The litany of that record is there for all to read. Yet, the Committee was informed only last Wednesday that there was no money for potholes, gully drains, grass verges, road markings, signage or bridges. It was incredible to hear it. We have a management putting public safety at risk, and it is not good enough.”
“Nothing changed; it was then and remains a Department out of control. <BR /> <BR />I say to the pipsqueaks seeking wriggle room with the question, "What would you do?" that it is a silly point. The Committee's role is to scrutinise policy not make it. What could you do anyway with distorted facts and figures presented that did not stack up? It is not a question of "What would you do?"; it is and will remain a question of "What on earth is being done?". We have a litany of serious compounded errors as detailed in various Hansard and Committee reports, showing over a lengthy period — not last week or yesterday — how the Committee's concerns were met by excuses given by officials to exonerate the Department irrespective of how many times their forecasts proved to be inaccurate. Evasion was the name of their game.”
“It is a privilege to serve on the Committee, in deference to which I take great exception to any scurrilous spin that, two weeks ago, we met to gang up on the Department and that resulted in today's motion. It is not a fantasy motion; it is about real things. In case that realisation has not sunk in, which I suspect is and always was part of the problem, the Department has only itself to blame. The motion is borne out of months of frustration and bewilderment at listening to evidence from senior officials who fell apart under deep probing and close scrutiny of their decisions and actions. It is not a sudden surprise, and it should not be a sudden surprise to the Minister either. He will recall that, some time ago, I warned him personally that the arrogance of some of his senior officials was causing him to lose his Committee.”
“Thank you. On the matter of fairness, does the Member agree that it is grossly unfair for groups such as Down Community Transport, which is close to his and my heart, to be expected to use their reserves to fund gaps caused by the Department?”
“Previously, I have asked the Minister to resign over his lamentable ministerial performances. In the light of him blatantly overriding, in cavalier fashion, advice from his permanent secretary and the Translink CEO by this intention to sink an overspend of £6 million into this project — some might say £26 million in real terms — which is not value for money as they have advised him, will he not resign forthwith?”
“— getting that answer out. Would he go along with that?”
“Going back to Mr Rogers's question, the Minister's answer and the idea of the generic letter, the Minister quite rightly identified parental anger when that generic letter is received. There is a geographic list of where they can go. On the basis that that can be misinterpreted and provoke anger — it certainly has among my constituents — will the Minister be in a position in future to ensure that such a letter is worded more carefully and more appropriately so as not to cause any consternation to parents? The message that he has given in the House today is perhaps one that parents and schools would like to hear. Perhaps his press office might do something about —”
“If that is the conclusion of the business of the Assembly in which we have all been proud to serve, then thanks, Minister, for ensuring that we do not waste any more time.”
“If that is how we are being asked to leave the House, and this is my last day in the Assembly, shame on the Assembly and shame on those who would put the House in this position. <BR /> <BR />People may talk about recriminations, and, of course, there will be plenty afterwards. I heard Minister O'Dowd talk about hours or days to put this right, yet I heard Mr Agnew tell the House that we began this in 2012, and here we have a Minister of Education — a failed Minister of Education — telling us that we should devote a few more hours or days. <BR /> <BR />The conclusion has been made that there is no more time. I compliment the Minister on having the courage to put the Bill before the House today and not waste any more time.”
“It has been a long day, and, as we come to the conclusion of it, if we show how much we in the House care about people, be they on benefits or not, that will go a long way to proving that this place can and should work for everyone. I am not asking people to save this place unless they truly believe that it can be made to work better and to improve on its value. I am, however, asking that we do not let down the people who believe in us, people who have come out to vote for the Assembly in sufficient numbers and trusted us to work for all, not least the most vulnerable in our society. If that cannot be done, and if that is the consequence of today, we should not waste any more time or waste the people's time — this Executive must admit to their failure, fold up and walk away.”
“Take 10,000 carers with a rates reduction of £50 per year and that is £500,000; take 20,000 with a rates reduction of £70 per year, and that is £1·4 million. So take somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000 vulnerable people, served and looked after by carers; strike a cap and go for it; and, in showing that we care more about people's benefits than party political benefits, can we not find a way out of this? Can we find between £5·5 million and £11 million to ease a vulnerable person's family situation and, at the same time, deal with and ease the pressure on our forthcoming Budget?”
“The figures I offer are not about me or anyone else determining the vulnerability level of a person on welfare benefits. I simply do not know the categorisation of welfare benefits and how they are defined and equated so that someone is termed more vulnerable than someone else, but that that is how it works. I think that these figures relate only to a lifelong carer looking after a vulnerable person on benefits. My suggestion is to take the next three years. Why three years, you may ask? If we believe George Osborne, that is around the time that, he reckons, austerity will be ending. <BR /> <BR />Take 10,000 carers at an extra £500 per year on their allowance and that is £5 million; take 20,000 at £500 per year and that is £10 million.”
“We are already overcommitted to large loans, and the attitude of some Members today does little to foster confidence in our abilities to talk any economic sense. So why not talk to the Prime Minister and his Chancellor? Why not put the proposition of increasing the allowance for long-term carers and reducing their household rates free from knock-backs on funding? After all, they might be interested, one day, to call on the 11 votes which three of the parties represented in this place have at Westminster. <BR /> <BR />I am in no position to negotiate but I am clear that, if those who are in such a position have any sense, they will realise that they are clinging by a fragile thread in finding the attention of the Prime Minister waiting on their next move.”
“We could increase the lifelong carer's allowance by an extra £500 per year and, in doing so, not get into the benefits argument. They will take their own course, but the family would at least suffer less by increasing the carer's allowance in circumstances where the benefit receiver would be hit the hardest. <BR /> <BR />I have heard it said before: help the unsung heroes who save this country a fortune, by giving them more to help the people they care for. Why not? For the same type of family, with a lifelong carer in place as previously described, we could also give the household a small but effective rates reduction. I ask you to look at it this way and face the facts. In basic economic terms, we do not have an extended credit line. We lack financial credibility to borrow and, moreover, to be trusted to pay back.”
“In such circumstances, in those talks and given the opportunity, then my suggestion on behalf of UKIP — having not been invited to so-called all-party talks — is to call Westminster's bluff on what we can use without offloading the funding onto our block grant stream. Could we, I asked, and would we, now that evidence has been shown to dispense with parity, look at the role of lifelong carers in the light of these benefit reduction measures and, given the significant evidence that most — granted, not all — benefit receivers who are categorised as seriously vulnerable are looked after at home and cared for on a 24/7 basis by a lifelong carer, do two things for the family and for the person on benefits at the same time?”
“I remember it. Nor was I involved in what transpired to be the Stormont Castle agreement. So, I am unable to comment on the common sense of either, but I do see the common sense of what is presented in the House today. Therefore, it is regrettable that we reach this stage of vetoes and rejection, having been unable to have either of those agreements debated in the House with amendments tabled and the petition of concern weapon decommissioned.”
“We have not grown up within the experiment that was designed to actually share power, and now we put at risk the very things we want to pass on as our legacy: peace; order; better government and democracy through the union; and devolution. Bust it now, and it will be a long time before that offer is renewed. <BR /> <BR />Today we have seen recriminations spill over. We see that we are governed not by consensus policies or by a majority within a coalition but by the sharp instrument of the veto and the blunt tactic of petitions of concern. Are we really saying, "Theresa Villiers, it's all yours. Do your best"? Are we so far apart that today we have joined the Crazy Gang? <BR /> <BR />As I said, I was not privy to an agreement that, at first, called the Prime Minister and a Taoiseach to rush over to Stormont House to seal a deal.”
“Where is there even talk of a plan to make adjustments in our financial management for the future, when we cannot agree today to proceed with the Bill? <BR /> <BR />What state will patient care in our health service be in by then? What will be the continued extent of turmoil in our schools? Tell the people who sent us to do a job, not me, what promises are going to be made that anyone is going to deliver on. <BR /> <BR />There can be no satisfactory outcome from today's proceedings. We cannot fault the people who think that this place, with its division, is not worth paying for any more. That truly would be a failure that we would be unlikely to recover from, yet we have hamstrung ourselves with overzealous regulations based on mistrust, rather than consensus cooperation.”
“I know of no Member who welcomes austerity or who does not or will not stand up for the seriously vulnerable. No single party can claim to speak for the vulnerable, who will be hit the hardest by these benefit reforms, but only one party made irresponsible promises. Only one party misled the public. Whatever the outcome resulting from today, be it direct rule, mounting Treasury fines or calling in administrators to do the work that the Executive cannot hack out together, let alone attempt to put a Budget through until next year, we should fast-track to next month, when the Chancellor will outline the details of further austerity measures and billions more reductions in cuts for everyone from the welfare budget. What then for Northern Ireland? Where is the plan?”
“Are people not entitled to ask why the deputy First Minister is not out of office three weeks after watching his pie in the sky promises wrecked by five more years of Tories in Government, this time in on their own terms? Did he not choose to use austerity as the stick to beat the Brits with, and has he not now fallen on his own sword?”
“Can the deputy First Minister stay on when his strategy has collapsed leaving vulnerable people on benefits facing the consequences of his failure alone to deliver the promises that he made to them that their benefits would not now or ever be reduced? Those promises failed to materialise. How could the Scots or the Welsh do business with a man who makes promises that he cannot keep and has used the most vulnerable in a despicable manner in this failed tactic? <BR /> <BR />Up until 8 May, he had one plan and one strategy: stick it out until Labour wins or, at worst, Labour and the SNP come together in a hung Parliament. It burst, they burst and he is bust with yet another plan decimated and torn up into pieces.”
“<BR /> <BR />In the aftermath of seeing his intransigent stance and negotiating demands rejected, I ask this: what are the deputy First Minister's prospects and intentions? His plan was not just rejected but booted out in no uncertain terms when he was told by the Prime Minister that this part of the United Kingdom will be treated no differently on welfare reforms than any other part of the United Kingdom. I ask this, therefore: can anyone having been so seriously rebuffed in such a dismissive manner remain in office? How can anyone who thought that they were getting it so right be proved so wrong?”
“He is forgetting, of course, that the nationalists in Scotland and Wales have already adopted the nation's welfare reforms and are working through the previous Government's austerity sanctions. Is he now telling us that he is in negotiations with Nicola Sturgeon and Leanne Wood to join with Sinn Féin? Is he bringing with him the lame-duck SDLP as his co-opted bag carriers? According to him today, we are beyond this Bill. He wants to scupper the July Budget without knowing what it contains. If so, it is going to be a long, hot summer waiting for the autumn, when on the basis of today, the talking has stopped and Sinn Féin, with the SDLP, have isolated themselves from this place. That is an important and pertinent question to ask, and it proffers another enquiry.”
“There is no engagement in trench warfare with the sovereign Government that is going to successfully pull people out of the deep hole that they have dug for themselves by promising that pie in the sky guarantee that no one, either now or in perpetuity, will ever be affected by cuts. Is that the plan? Is that it: make a promise that you could never keep and convince yourself that it is now all a matter of principle? Well, principle, my eye. Smartness and smugness all of a sudden looked daft and embarrassing on 8 May, when Sinn Féin's master tactic fell into its own hole and the Tories formed a single majority Government. <BR /> <BR />I read that the great strategist, the deputy First Minister, now wants to form a rebel Celtic coalition to fight austerity.”
“Irrespective of the genuine opposition shown here and elsewhere, they have been adopted and are being implemented in every region throughout the United Kingdom except here. The people out there would like to know what sets us so apart from others. Are our benefit-seekers any different from those in England, Scotland and Wales? Are the reforms not the same for everyone? Is it not the case that, by resisting the reforms in a dishonourable manner, we find ourselves in a House that continues to punish the very people each of us wants to protect?”
“On days like today, and in the realisation that a day like today will probably happen again, it is painfully obvious that this Executive are proving themselves to be a failed entity. Is there a plan on the table today, or tomorrow? Even a majority plan will do, or do majorities, like everything else in this place, count for nothing? <BR /> <BR />Are we in the territory of the unknown, as described by the Chair of the Social Development Committee earlier? Is it not the case that the only plan that is causing posturing and prevarication — the reform of welfare benefits, sent down for us to adopt — is one outside our creation and beyond our scope of authority? Is it not the case that those reforms are universal across the whole of the United Kingdom?”
“If you ask the public what they voted for nearly three weeks ago, they will tell you that it was not for a crash at Stormont. Watching the circling of well-worn and well worn-out party wagons collapsing in a pile-up, people out there are demanding to know just what is going on at the House on the hill. At the end of today, will anyone know whether it is a win, a loss or a draw? Are we up for business next week or next month? If the shutters come down for the summer recess, will they be pulled up again for business in September? <BR /> <BR />Frankly, it is an unacceptable position for parties that willingly formed a mandatory coalition to be unable to voluntarily sustain their duties in government. That is reprehensible and irresponsible. Keeping this cowboy coalition honest and accountable is fast becoming a waste of time.”
“If this Sinn Féin/SDLP blockade is about parties that are privy to official sets of figures adding up differently, will someone, for goodness' sake, tell them to do their sums again? There cannot be more than one reliable set of facts and figures to add up and count. Someone, therefore, cannot count, or someone does not want the calculation to add up. Unless, that is, the figures do stack up and everyone knows it, but it is the incidentals to be added on that tell us the true facts — the areas called "passports into benefits", which do count and can overload figures officially compiled beyond the simple DLA conversion that we have been working to. <BR /> <BR />I suggest that we pay attention, because this is more than stalemate. It is about more than a petition of concern. It is beyond adding and subtraction.”
“What are you going to do about it, Dolores?”
“I thank the Minister for her answer. I have always recognised, congratulated and acknowledged her performance as a Minister. However, 20% of our 18- to 24-year-olds are unemployed, and 80% of that age group earn less than the living wage. Given the news that we have had this morning, what is your message to young people when we have evidence of fluctuations in the economy?”
“I am not criticising anyone, least of all the Minister. In fact, I join him in the encouragement that he has given to the talent and the people we have. <BR /> <BR />There were revelations in England that some health executives earned more than £1 million last year and that directors were getting packages of up to £5,000 a day. In light of what the Minister has said and to allow us to compete, what increases does he have in mind over the next two years for the category of staff that he has just told the House about?”
“There is no ad-libbing now. This is a straight answer now.”
“I am grateful for the Minister's explanation. Could he tell me what weight age is being given for these redundancies?”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. I am sure that he takes the point in my question. In response to a recent Assembly question, the Minister said that 14,480 year-12 pupils sat GCSE in design and technology, which is a pointer. Is the Minister prepared to introduce an early introduction to programming? I take it from his previous answer that he is unable to give me an example of that and of how such a programme could be expanded, but I do see the need.”
“Is it one or two or three? It cannot be hundreds.”
“That sounds like good news, and I thank the Minister for that. In light of what he has said, will he advise the House how many expressions of interest in tendering for the project have been registered?”
“I cannot think of a more topical issue than one that is breaking news.”
“Should the Consumer Council ever again be ignored in the manner in which it was ignored by Translink, will the Minister tell the House what action he would take?”
“In the light of what the Minister just said, would he really and earnestly consider putting in a cap so that nurses who have been trained in Northern Ireland have to stay here for a period so that we are not losing them to the places that he says we are?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that, in our time here, we have come through some crises, none more so than the recent one at Christmas? Are we now hearing of a new crisis developing over the naming of a children's park and, having heard what has been said by the Sinn Féin Members, one that is putting the future of the Assembly in jeopardy?”
“Why do you not call her to order, Mr Speaker, for that kind of speech?”
“You are brainwashed. You are brainwashed. Brainwashed.”
“I challenge anyone to deny that the recommendations are in favour of the sustainability of wind farms, and there ends the story. They are not recognising the rights of people, and they will, I believe, be subject to legal challenge. What of the 849 applications still out there awaiting decision? The recommendations do nothing to make a case to refuse them planning permission. Somehow, Members, I feel that the answer is still blowing in the wind. The Assembly should not be tilting at windmills.”
“If not, the recommendations are inadequate guidance for planning implications.”
“Today, in our own local farce, we have a Committee recommending the sustainability of wind farms and, regrettably, offering little to give any real assurance to the people and communities directly affected by these monstrosities. The report recommends the sustainability of wind turbines, and, if it does not, the Committee should make it clear that that is its position.”