Mervyn Storey
North Antrim · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“I thank the Minister for his statement. It will be noted that there are those who cry much about the environment and purport to be the champions of the environment who did not have the courtesy to come to the House and be present when the statement was being made.”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. Clearly, there are some in the House who want to continue with the same old, same old and get the same outcomes at a huge cost to the public purse and to farms in Northern Ireland. The Minister is absolutely right: it is a scourge.”
“I am sure that the Minister will be aware, having listened to the Member who spoke before me, that the farmers of North Antrim will make an informed choice about who best supported farmers during this mandate of the Assembly.”
“A pilot scheme has been operating with the Education Authority, the PSNI and the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust across 60 schools in the south Down area since September 2021 and was extended to a further 77 schools in the Newry and south Armagh areas at the start of February 2022.”
“As Chair of the Justice Committee, I am pleased to welcome the motion. It implements the provisions taken forward by the Committee in the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 to establish an Operation Encompass model in Northern Ireland, which is, as the Minister has outlined, a police and early intervention pa…”
“We had our final meeting of that Committee this morning, and I want to place on the public record our appreciation and thanks to our Committee staff of for all the work that they have done.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,983 lines we hold for Mervyn Storey, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 15 of 60.
“However, the seriousness of this cannot be underestimated, if we believe that victims need to be listened to. Of course, we know the attitude of the party opposite to victims. The IRA were victim makers for far too long in Northern Ireland. We saw how the party opposite had to be trailed to address the issue of victims in the courts just a few weeks ago. We welcome that.”
“Tell the victims, who are those who have to suffer as a result of these actions, and I think that they are more prepared to accept that, when you stand before the court, you will get a sentence that is fit for purpose and reflects the crime that was committed. <BR /> <BR />Let us look at another recent case, that of Christine Connor. It took seven years to bring that person to justice, and, thankfully, she is now behind bars. The Minister has to take responsibility for ensuring that the processes are in place to quickly and appropriately deal with those who would inflict awful pain and suffering in our community. <BR /> <BR />The Minister made reference to being populist. Dear me, that would be an awful thing. Has the Alliance Party never been populist? There has been a debate, and I welcome many of the comments that have been made.”
“I came from a meeting today with the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service, and we have seen the disgraceful attacks on members of the Ambulance Service. You can go down through the list of public servants. <BR /> <BR />Somehow, we have to get to the root cause. We have to understand why someone has decided to inflict their form of justice on public servants. It is not good enough as a society, and we have a society today that seems to have more emphasis on human rights than human wrongs. That is an industry that needs to be radically changed, but, of course, when we say that, we are accused of being extremists. We are away out, far right. That is an awful place to be.”
“Again, the Minister is defensive of the system, and, probably, to a lesser or greater degree, when I was a Minister, I was defensive of my civil servants in the two Departments that I was in. However, at least I was prepared to come to this Chamber and tell it, when it was not good enough, whatever it was that had been done. <BR /> <BR />You would also think from listening to the Minister that there was not a problem, that somehow there was a bit of politicking going on and a few noises being raised. There is a problem. There is a problem in society today where it seems as through you can break the law, you can riot, you can protest and you can attack front-line workers, police officers and members of the Ambulance Service.”
“However, it is not good enough that, with all the seriousness of the issue that we are debating, in 2020, having had a consultation launched in 2016, we have not seen progress.”
“I ask her to revisit that point as well. <BR /> <BR />This afternoon we have had various comments. Normally, when you come to this part of the debate, you find that it is a rehearsal of all that everybody else has said. I will not go down that laborious route, because everyone has had the opportunity to say what they had to say. However, I will comment on a few points that were made this afternoon. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the comments of the former Minister of Justice, Claire Sugden. While what she said was batted out of court by the Minister, the Member was on the money. Here is where we, as politicians, sometimes run the risk of somehow being seen as ungrateful for the service of our public servants. That is not the case.”
“While the amendment is not what we would have sought and, obviously, we would prefer to get our motion through the House, we welcome what others have said in the spirit and consideration of it, and we are happy for the Minister to bring that information to the Committee. However, it is disappointing that the Minister has not been able to give a definitive or conclusive time frame for this. I accept what she said about the legislative pressure on her Department and accept that that is the case, but she, as the Minister, has the power to prioritise. In correspondence with me recently, she was able to tell me that additional police officers were not a priority for her, even though that is in 'New Decade, New Approach'. The Minister said that it is not a priority for her. Clearly, she has some degree of flexibility.”
“I refer to the comments made by Linda Dillon in yet again seeking to sully the memory of members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. That is a reflection of that party's view of law and order, and, of course, we have seen many examples over the last few weeks of their partial approach to even being able to stay within the confines of the COVID regulations: "It is good enough for others, but t is not good enough for us". Yet again, not surprisingly, the party opposite displays duplicity, hypocrisy and double standards. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the fact that I have to follow the Minister. There is some glimmer of hope that the Minister is prepared to bring the information to the Committee that would see a possible change in the sentencing framework. We welcome that that is a fact.”
“We would all do well to pause in the Chamber today and reflect on the many families across a long time, over many years, who have lost loved ones at the hands of those who perpetrated evil against them. Our thoughts are with those families today, and we assure them that we will make every effort to ensure that their loved one's memory is not forgotten or somehow tarnished by our actions. We think in particular and in recent times, of course, of the family of Adrian Donohoe and of Andrew Harper. <BR /> <BR />As mentioned in the debate, we are never surprised by the actions and words of the party opposite. Never do they come into the Chamber but they take the opportunity to visit and revisit their view of those who have protected us through the years.”
“The Member needs to be careful of hyping an issue that is not relevant. The powers in relation to the governance and courses in a university do not rest with any Minister; they rest with the university. The Member needs to be aware of what the powers are, because, if that were the case, I would be knocking on the door of the Economy Minister in relation to certain courses that have disappeared. The responsibility rests with the university, not with the Minister.”
“<BR /> <BR />There are other decisions that were made in the past 17 years that, as a humble Back-Bencher, I did not agree with and the consequences of which were not in the best interests of the House or the community; for example, the decision on the number of Members. We all can point to issues that show that no one is infallible. We have all made our mistakes, and we all can get it wrong. If he can caveat his comments in that way, some of us would accept some of his other arguments with a more ready hand.”
“I appreciate the Member's integrity. He and I go back a long, long way. There is an eminent Member who normally sits in the seat beside him and has two letters after his name. He is not here today. That Member has made comments on legal issues, but they are opinions. Let us remember: no one judge or member of the legal profession has divine knowledge. We always need to caveat that we are talking about an opinion held by three people — two solicitors and Richard — and that, equally, there are other legal opinions that say, "No, the outworking of this is not that envisaged by the other three or four". I caution my colleague and friend to take that into account. Richard is someone of immense ability, but what he is saying is an opinion.”
“On issues of cross-cutting importance, can the Member give any example of me, when I was the Minister responsible, doing any of the things that he makes allegations about?”
“I have always been big enough to stand in a position where I will defend my party. I am very proud of being a member of this party and have been since I was 15. When I was —.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I am intrigued by Members opposite, who seem to be trying to hit some public opinion. They have come into the House wearing masks. The same Members were not that good at wearing masks when they attended the funeral of Bobby Storey. A fair degree of populism goes on on that side of the Chamber. <BR /> <BR />The Member talks about slowing up the economy. The Member's party had no difficulty in slowing up the interconnector that would give us all-Ireland electricity provision. They still do not accept that that is the way forward, yet it is all-Ireland, and they were quite happy to go to the courts about that process. When will we have an end to double standards and a bit of honesty about what the party opposite wants?”
“That is my understanding, and I do think that we need to take that. That is not a criticism of Mr Bullick, who I hold in the highest regard, but I think that he falls into that category of lawyers and people of a legal mind. When you have a group of lawyers in a room, you do not have agreement. In most cases, you probably have disagreement and a very large invoice.”
“Yes. I want to follow on from the point that the honourable Member Mr Wells made. The difficulty that I have with Richard Bullick's intervention — he is someone who I hold in the highest regard — is that he has been out of this place for some considerable time now. There are issues with where the gaps may be, given what has happened in that intervening period. <BR /> <BR />My other point is that the Assembly still has the 30-name petition for a recall, and three Ministers can still call any cross-cutting or controversial issue to the Executive. Therefore, I think that there is a sequence of events that still gives us protection, and I think that the junior Ministers will be able to either confirm or deny that that is the case, knowing that I am not always across the detail on some of these things.”
“I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will conclude with this: will the Member consider the dilemma over the legal arguments about the Bill?”
“Now we have a litany of legislation that has been pored over by legal counsel, and laypeople, like most of us in the House, wonder on which side of the legal argument are the practical outworkings of the legislation. It is not a moral dilemma for me; it is more an issue of looking at the legal advice that gives me and members of my party the protection that no Minister will run rogue and do things that none of us wants. Of course, the party opposite is good at doing what it has done in the past, with its mischievous activities. I, for one, want to ensure that all Members in the House and all parties in the House abide and play by the rules, not only in the Executive. We saw their antics a few weeks ago, when they could not even behave themselves at a funeral, so why would you expect them to behave —.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I just wish that he would be more consistent in his application of moral courage, given that he has supported in the House legislation that is immoral. I refer to the issue of the protection of the unborn child. We do not need lectures in the House about moral courage. <BR /> <BR />We have an issue, and that issue is simple. It is that we have, not for the first time, a dilemma amongst lawyers who, I have to say, are paid considerably more than Members of the House. We could fill the Chamber with lawyers who have been to the High Court and the Supreme Court and have had judgements made and judgements overturned.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I accept the point that he made with regard to his colleague, the Minister of Health. Are we to take it that his comments in the Chamber today are the stated and agreed comments of the Ulster Unionist Party and that they have been discussed with the Health Minister? Therefore, the Health Minister and the Ulster Unionist Party are in agreement with the comments that you are making?”
“Apologies, Mr Temporary Speaker. <BR /> <BR />This was not the first republican funeral at which something like this happened. On four other occasions, there have been clear breaches of the regulations.”
“Is it not also the case that we need to put on record that this was not the first republican funeral —.”
“There are questions for the Church authorities. There are questions for Belfast City Council. I say to the deputy First Minister in the House tonight: there are questions that you must answer, and the best way that you will answer them is by your actions. I think that those actions are to leave the office that you currently hold.”
“Mr Temporary Speaker, there are questions for the PSNI, and, tomorrow morning, I, along with the First Minister, will meet the police in relation to those questions.”
“I want the Members opposite to listen to this; not only to hear, but to listen:”
“Yes, and I thank you for that. We have many quotes from the deputy First Minister. I noticed a quote in the 'Belfast Telegraph' prior to Mother's Day. She rightly, on that occasion, determined that, because of the circumstances, Mother's Day would be different for those who had the joy of being able to celebrate with their mother. However, I want to take you to a family in my constituency — a neighbour of mine — who wrote to me on the following day. This is what he said:”
“What is in a person's heart will ultimately be displayed in their actions and in what they do. Let us remember that the former leader of the republican party denied that he was even in the IRA. How insulting to the intelligence of the people of Northern Ireland can you be? What can we say of the families of the Disappeared? What can we say of the litany of families who have grieved for many, many years because of the actions of republicans? They have never once said where those people are, with the exception of Jean McConville, and that forever will hang over the head of republicanism as a shame and a disgrace. <BR /> <BR />The motion refers to”
“We should not be surprised by double standards and doublespeak from the party opposite. We, and I, have suffered as a result of coming to this House. I have lost good friends who, still to this day, are opposed to our coming into Government with Sinn Féin. <BR /> <BR />The scripture says, ultimately:”
“Members, we will all one day, when we pass this scene of time, not be held accountable to this Assembly, but to the judge of all the earth. <BR /> <BR />As we come to the debate, as Mr McCrossan adequately put it, the issue is not the passing of Mr Storey. The issue is what happened and the actions of the deputy First Minister and others. I wonder, in the House and among the people who are watching, should anybody be surprised? Did it come as a shock that we had, in the deputy First Minister and others, such a display that really said to the people of Northern Ireland and further afield that their republicanism, its ideology and all that it is to them is more important than the law? It is more important than doing what we said must be done for many weeks.”
“Thank you Mr Temporary Speaker. As I rise to speak in the debate, I do so ever conscious that there is a family who grieve the passing of a loved one. I also do it in the light of what the scriptures tell us in those words that are often repeated:”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He may be aware that there is a meeting today in Belfast of the coach operators. Obviously, I have had some discussion with some of the coach operators in my constituency. The issue of regulation falls within the remit of the Department for Infrastructure, and the plea that comes from the motion and from the House is for the Minister to recognise that there needs to be, as the proposer of the motion stated, leadership on the issue to make a recommendation so that, in particular, the coach operators get financial assistance.”
“Following on from Mr. Aiken's comment, will the deputy First Minister stand over those words? <BR /> <BR />Secondly, and this is important, will she clarify whether the back-and-whites who followed the cortege at the funeral of Bobby Storey were part of the funeral?”
“On 4 June, the deputy First Minister said in relation to the Black Lives Matter protest:”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Carroll made comments in reference to the Minister. He said that the Minister would be sympathetic to a particular issue. Will those matters be considered, and will they be ruled on? I do not think that a Minister, who will have to make decisions on many applications, should be perceived as somehow having a particular view on an issue, given the fact that the matter has just come out of the court.”
“The Members who, with great delight, will have won a hollow victory will complain about there being no investment in their area. That is something that some Members need to seriously reflect on.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. I will not pre-empt the wrath of the Deputy Speaker any longer. I accept his ruling that the vote on accelerated passage has taken place. However, we also need to be cognisant of the fact that what we have done today will be important when we look back and ask whether we should we have had more detail on the Bill. Unfortunately, I am not convinced that there is not someone listening to these proceedings who already has their pen and pencil ready to take the next application that is before a Minister to court. That will bring about delay, which, ultimately, will lead an investor to decide, "I have had enough. That place is not worth investing in, and it is time for me to put my money somewhere else".”
“I agree to an extent that accelerated passage is never a good way to do business. Equally, it is not a good thing when there is urgency to put it into a Committee and kick it around for weeks and get more and more information. You end up with a pile of information, and nobody is any the wiser after all the information has been provided. It is about striking a balance between those two things. On this one, while it is a necessity, I would still prefer to scrutinise the Bill in Committee with evidence being gathered from appropriate witnesses and from a wide variety of sources. Sometimes, when we come to this issue, as with many others, it is the usual suspects who —.”
“Of course, that report was more to do with the public perception of those who were involved in making the decisions. Yes, we have to have openness and transparency. I was at a meeting the other day and I was taken aback when a member of the party on the opposite Benches said that what we needed was honesty. That is exactly what we need from the party opposite: honesty about a lot of things that have gone on in this little country for far too long. <BR /> <BR />I will conclude by saying that, in the House, we often refer to setting precedents. We are setting a precedent and a marker for the processes that we will use. I trust that, in the outworking of the legislation, we will look back on this day and say that it was beneficial and necessary and that we will not look back and say that we should have done something else.”
“I think my colleague and friend Mr Frew tried, and he tried very valiantly. I may not get so far before the Deputy Speaker brings me back to the principles of the Bill. However, Mr Frew raised an issue or issues that come as a result of what we are establishing in the Bill, if it passes the House to go further in its legislative process. It highlights for us the importance of the Planning Service and the functions of the Minister who has responsibility. The House responded to public outcry: "Too many councils. Let's get rid of them. Let's have 11. Let's reduce the numbers, the bureaucracy, the cost and the duplication". I wonder how many would want to go back to the 26 councils today when it comes to making local decisions. <BR /> <BR />There was a report last week from Queen's University on the Planning Service.”
“I did not have the benefit of going to school for any longer than, I felt, was necessary. I was 16 when I left and went to work for Lovell and Christmas at the Agivey bacon factory. However, I am blessed enough to know that there are some words that are placed in documents such as we have and in legislation for a purpose. While that purpose may not be explicit to those who read it, it will clearly be explicit to its authors. Its draftspersons — the people who drafted it — surely will have had some idea of what was specifically meant when that was put into the Bill. I would welcome the junior Ministers' answer when they come to the Floor. <BR /> <BR />There is sometimes a comment that, when you come to look at a Bill — maybe more the detail of the Bill, as opposed to its principles — you can go from Dan to Beersheba.”
“<BR /> <BR />So we come to the House to look at the Bill, which has come as a result of what happened in the courts. It has come as a result of a judgement in the courts, so it is right that we seek to regularise that issue. <BR /> <BR />I would like whichever junior Minister answers before the House this afternoon to give us some understanding of the terminology:”
“Will Members allow me to digress for one minute, not from the principles of the Bill but just to give an example? Shared Environmental Services is an organisation that was established by the former Environment Minister. It now has a life of its own. It seems to be able to make decisions, it tells us, only in the interpretation of the European habitats directive, but it is not under the control of any Minister in the Executive. It is an agency, and, when we have tried to find out which is the sponsoring Department, we are left almost with silence. It is not Infrastructure; in fact, it has been suggested to me that maybe the Department for Communities has responsibility for the organisation, which happens to be based in my constituency and governed, in terms of its function, by Mid and East Antrim Borough Council.”
“The Member for South Belfast raised a query earlier in the debate in regard to the diminution of environmental protection. It is well known now, whenever any Minister in the Executive, be it the Infrastructure Minister, the Agriculture Minister or any other Minister, introduces legislation to try to make progress, benefit society, enhance industry or say something that is good news to our farming community, which has suffered and continues to suffer, where we end up. We end up in court.”
“I think that it is right that we have a legal process, and I think that it is right that we have a legal system where we can have issues addressed that are of concern, but there is a concern that we have a process in Northern Ireland, particularly in planning, where there is a very, very high dependency upon the legal process.”
“Obviously, if you had been a Member in a constituency who had a particular issue in relation to this very specific issue of what happened in the Member's constituency, you should make a declaration of interest. So, I do think, not for the first time in the House from Members opposite, we need the word that everybody has seemed to have on their lips in the past number of hours: clarity. <BR /> <BR />We are, I am assuming, before the House today, having the Bill in front of us to clarify and put into legislation the outworkings of what happened in the Buick case. That has brought us to this point. That issue raises the other element of this debate, and that is, as has been referred to, about recourse to the law.”
“I rise not as a result of why other Members think I am on my feet but because this is an issue in the House that I think, ironically, goes to another issue that is lying in tatters at the other side of that Door. That is the credibility of the House and our ability to make legislation and, having made that legislation, abide by it. The Member who spoke previously referred to the mover of the motion, and I think that it does beg the question about what declarations of interest are made in the House when Members stand. Surely, if you were involved in a judicial review against a planning application, you should make a declaration of interest because you would have an interest in that particular matter and you had taken that matter through the courts whether you had won or lost.”
“I thank my colleague for giving way. He cites a comparison that has been in the public domain for some time, not only between the two councils that are close in jurisdiction, but wider afield. Earlier, Mr Muir gave us a startling statistic, in regards to the length of time. I am told that one developer, from outside Northern Ireland, wonders if there is a planning department at all. That individual is now considering taking his money somewhere else, and putting it in a jurisdiction where they are glad to see development.”
“Apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker. I always like to look at the person I am speaking to, Mr Deputy Speaker. <BR /> <BR />The issue is that, next year, the Northern Ireland Audit Office will carry out two very important pieces of work; one on procurement and one on planning. Those will be fundamental because they look at issues that have created massive problems for investment in Northern Ireland. I very much welcome the fact that the Audit Office will be taking that work forward.”
“The Member will be aware that the Northern Ireland Audit Office —.”