Trevor Clarke
South Antrim · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“For recruitment to the current Youth Assembly and on the basis of research on the youth demographic in Northern Ireland, a minimum of 10 young people with disabilities were sought in order to be representative of the data. Of the 90 young people appointed to the Youth Assembly, 18 have a disability.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Youth Assembly regularly uses social media to promote its work, and, when preparing for a new mandate, targeted multimedia recruitment campaigns are used to engage young people and encourage participation.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Assembly Commission also has an apprenticeship and placement framework that provides the opportunity for people with a disability to avail themselves of short-term supported placements.”
“In 2025, 770 tours were delivered and the number of events hosted in Parliament Buildings almost doubled to 583. <BR /> <BR />Our Education Service promotes its programmes to schools and colleges through an annual September mail-out, outlining provision for the relevant Key Stages, including a focus on inclusive engagement for children wi…”
“Mr Speaker, I may require an extra minute to answer the question. <BR /> <BR />I thank the Member for her question. The Assembly Commission's school work experience programme is facilitated through a partnership between our internal education services team and an organisation called Futures For All, a social mobility charity.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, I may need an extra minute to answer the question, and I thank the Member for it. <BR /> <BR />The Assembly Commission's public engagement strategy 2025-27 aims to increase awareness, improve understanding and enable participation in the work of the Assembly.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,151 lines we hold for Trevor Clarke, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 22 of 24.
“<BR /> <BR />Unfortunately, local authorities do not have that option and have implored the Committee to seek, on their behalf, the timely delivery of all information relevant to the transfer of functions, which ranges from maps of the sites to be transferred and financial histories in respect of claims and revenues of each car park to the very basic issue of what car parks would actually transfer. The Committee, therefore, seeks further assurance from the Minister that all financial, legal and other relevant information is, or has been, communicated to all local authorities as a matter of urgency. <BR /> <BR />I referred to the difficulties that the Committee and local government have had in respect of getting information from the Department.”
“I referred earlier to the Committee undertaking site visits to a range of car parks. At one such car park, in Enniskillen, the Committee was advised that departmental officials had been out that day and verbally informed council officials that they were retaining a strip of spaces on one side of what they deemed to be a public road. Curiously, they did not want the comparable strip that bordered the other side of the road; they just wanted the strip on one side of the road. That was indicative, the council believed, of inappropriate, ineffective and inefficient communication from the Department. Unfortunately, that is something that the Committee is experiencing more and more, and it is a problem that has lead us to explore the application of section 44 of the Northern Ireland Act to try to prise information from the Department.”
“Where this is not possible, the Minister should provide the Committee and the relevant local authorities with a timeline for the upgrading of car parks to a specification and standard that is acceptable to local authorities.”
“In providing this assurance, the Minister needs to ensure that there is no ambiguity and that his message, for once, is loud and clear that there will be no financial burden imposed on ratepayers as a result of assets and functions transferring to local authorities. <BR /> <BR />Almost every council made reference to the poor condition of the car parks being transferred. Indeed, representatives from the Committee saw these conditions when they undertook site visits. Flooded, potholed surfaces with no visibly marked-out spaces are not the fit-for-purpose car parks that the Department was trying to sell to the Committee or local government. The Committee is therefore seeking an assurance from the Minister that all car parks will be brought up to an acceptable standard, preferably in advance of the point of transfer.”
“There remains a significant concern among local councils that, ultimately, responsibility for off-street car parking will be a financial burden for ratepayers since the revenue potential of car parks is being reduced by the transfer of other functions and the current or future tariff policies of the Executive. <BR /> <BR />The Committee is keen to ensure that there is no financial burden on the ratepayer and is seeking an assurance from the Minister that the transfer of all functions remains rates-neutral not just at the point of transfer but also for the foreseeable future, subject to any changes in car parking charges and PCN tariffs implemented by the respective local authorities.”
“This provision is provided for in planning policy. The Committee seeks a strong assurance from the Minister or his relevant Executive colleagues that the retrospective scheme of transfer is amended to strengthen the references to existing planning policies and to protect local economic regeneration accordingly. <BR /> <BR />Local authorities had an expectation that, when the transfer of car parks was first mooted, the revenues from car parking tariffs and penalty charge notifications (PCNs) would be sufficient to cover the cost of maintaining the networks of car parks in their respective areas. In receiving oral evidence, the Committee was alarmed to learn that this was not the case and that other transferring functions, such as planning, would also be offset against any excess revenues from the car parks.”
“<BR /> <BR />It was difficult to pinpoint the precise value of the assets that were being transferred, which ranged between £233 million in 2010 to approximately £65 million at today’s values. They are, nevertheless, very substantial and it was key to the Committee that these valuable public assets were and are protected. The Committee did not wish to impose the "restrictive conditions" that the Minister so unhelpfully referred to during the Second Stage debate. That was a reference that contributed to a great deal of confusion and concern at local government level. I will reiterate what the Committee has recorded in its report:”
“I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate in my capacity as Chair of the Committee for Regional Development. First, I apologise to Members that the full Committee report on the Bill was not available in advance of Consideration Stage. This was due to a tight timeline in getting the report printed. I am aware that Members received a manuscript copy of the report at Consideration Stage and have now been provided with full copies well in advance of today's debate. <BR /> <BR />The Committee is content with the principles of the Bill. However, as will undoubtedly be expressed by others today, Members had a number of concerns that arose during Committee Stage. I hope that the Minister will address those concerns today and provide Members with the assurances that the Committee believes are necessary.”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, in your response, you talked about the Travellers' rights. However, each and every MLA will be inundated with enquiries about the rights of ordinary individuals who have housing stress and housing need. What is the Housing Executive doing to address their needs? Are we going to see more camps set up to alleviate the pain and suffering of ordinary individuals within our communities who are under housing stress?”
“I know from your answer to the previous intervention that you are not supporting a ban. However, in response to the question that has just been asked, how are you supporting a report that is not inclusive of peat and wood?”
“Mr Speaker, you are from the same constituency as me, and, as someone who represents a rural constituency, I am worried that, if this Minister and his counterpart in the South get their way, there will be a very negative impact on people in rural constituencies. For that reason, I support the motion.”
“Thank you for that, Mr Speaker. <BR /> <BR />You made my point for me. The whole idea is that raising revenue is an additional cost to households. The purpose of the debate, and I think the direction that Sammy wanted to take it when he tabled the motion, is to think of the 50,000-plus homes that people have difficulty heating. The Alliance Party policy is to increase, increase, increase the contributions that individuals have to make. <BR /> <BR />Back in October, Sammy Wilson put a question to the Minister. He asked what are:”
“Heaven forbid that it ever gets its way, because we are all familiar with fuel poverty in our constituencies.”
“Not this Christmas but the Christmas before, I was involved in a case where the council put a threatening letter through a pensioner's door. That woman was living on her own, and the only form of heat that she could use was "smoky coal", if that is the term that we want to use. She was that fearful that she chose not to heat her house over the Christmas period because she was scared of the rigours of the law. <BR /> <BR />It was interesting listening to Ms Lo when she said that it is only £1 a bag dearer, given that, only yesterday, her party suggested that we should increase the domestic rate and introduce water charges and everything else. The Alliance Party is really showing its hand as being a party for high taxation in Northern Ireland.”
“<BR /> <BR />It seems that, whilst Mr Eastwood has not got his wish for an all-Ireland policy, his Minister seems to be a puppet for the Republic. As Sammy read into the record, on 22 April 2013, it was announced that the Government plan to extend the ban on smoky coal to every town and village in the country. What part of that does Mr Eastwood not understand? That is the direction that his Minister, and indeed the Minister in the Irish Republic, wants to take this. As I said at the outset, if the whole purpose of this is to improve air quality, everything should have been included in the report. <BR /> <BR />I listened to what Sandra Overend said, and I support it. Someone like myself, who is from a rural constituency, knows that many people in rural constituencies have turned to a form of fuel that they can afford to heat their home.”
“I support the motion. It is difficult to follow on from Sammy's contribution, but it was interesting to listen to Cathal Boylan, and I listened attentively. He said, "Let's see what's in it". The difficulty that we on these Benches have is that we already know what is not going to be in it. That is the inclusion, or, in our case, the exclusion, of other types of fuel. As mentioned, let us look at two forms of fuel: peat and wood. In one of those cases, the end result is almost double the impact of smoky coal. It is difficult to see how we can have a report that focuses on one area. If it is all about air quality and trying to get the best arrangements to prevent air pollution, I think that everything should be included.”
“If that was true in 2011, is it true today, in 2015, under your watch? Have you failed in your term as Minister for Regional Development with this dispute?”
“The Minister's party manifesto in 2011 said:”
“I thank the Finance Minister for his allocations towards town bus services, street lighting and road repairs. Is he content that the allocations he has made today, which bizarrely have not been supported by the Minister for potholes and broken street lights, will bring about jobs, give security to the vulnerable and help the isolated in our rural towns?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I am picking up on the point he has just made about being well served by the NRC. That is the point I was trying to make. We had an NRC that served us well in Antrim, but we are still in the same scenario. The children in that area, whether in Templepatrick, Crumlin or Antrim town, actually have to get on the bus and head to Ballymena. The grammar provision in Ballymena is no different. We need the post-16 education service in the Antrim area rather than expecting our children to get on to buses every day.”
“Children are making those choices because they are deciding what they are going to do post 16. That has to be addressed. I support the proposer of the topic in dong whatever he can to help to address that situation. In the long term, there will be savings for the Education Authority in the amount of money we spend on transporting our children across the Province. There is an opportunity for Antrim Grammar, Parkhall and Crumlin to assist by providing more post-16 education to keep our kids in the area and prevent them from having to get up early in the morning to set off on long journeys and not get home until late in the afternoon. I support the proposal.”
“I had a choice: I grew up in that area, and my children were educated in it. When the Member made that point, I had a chuckle because he chose to go outside not only Antrim but the whole island to educate his children. That is just an aside. <BR /> <BR />The problem, Minister, is that the schools estate in our area has been ravaged. We need development in the area. I support the point that the Member well made in relation to Parkhall. We all support Antrim Grammar because it is the only grammar school that we have left in our area. When people, parents and children look at education now, they are looking for post-16 provision. It could be suggested that, for that reason, some people choose to get onto a bus every morning and their children are bussed to Belfast, Ballyclare or Ballymena.”
“That aside, the Member's point in relation to post-16 education in Antrim, Randalstown and Crumlin — I will just call it the Antrim borough — was well made. We have been served poorly. Reference was made to the provision that Antrim Grammar received. As the Member said, that provision is quite small. We are appealing for the Minister to do whatever he can to deliver more post-16 education for our constituents in the Antrim council area. <BR /> <BR />Another statistic that the honourable Member mentioned was the number of people who decide to get on buses to leave Antrim town, Crumlin and some of the outlying areas every day. That is very unfortunate. We can talk about austerity and how we can save money, but it is a sad and unfortunate indictment on our society. The Member talked about choices.”
“I thank the proposer of the topic. It is very timely. I am pleased to be part of the debate today. Reference has been made to Parkhall Integrated College. I put on record thanks to the Minister for listening to the delegation from the Antrim area from all the political parties in support of the Parkhall site. Education in the Antrim borough has been ravaged. It is about time that that tide turned. More should be done now in post-primary education. <BR /> <BR />I had a slight chuckle when I heard the proposer of the topic say that there was no regional college. I remind him that it was his Minister who removed the regional college from Antrim back in 2010; he made that announcement. It was disappointing, because it served Antrim particularly well. Even though it was the newest of the sites at the time, it served the people well.”
“— through a combination of income-generating and cost-reduction measures, including reductions in non-front-line staff and internal organisational changes, fare increases and service changes, which will involve looking at reducing the services that make the greatest losses.”
“It strengthens the Committee's view that the current structures are ineffective and that the Department and Translink are in cahoots with each other. <BR /> <BR />The pain does not end there. The Committee has asked the Department how Translink intends to reverse its loss-making trend and has been told that Translink plans to recover its losses —”
“Get rid of the most unprofitable routes, even though they may be the most essential. Cherry-pick your routes. Save yourselves money and build up your hard-hit reserves. Let the old, the isolated and the most vulnerable worry about these routes". <BR /> <BR />Just to rub salt into the wounds, during the very delicate process of trying to agree a draft Budget, not only is Translink allowed to show once again its lack of regard for the general public by announcing a 5% increase in fares, but it goes ahead with this decision without consulting the Committee, stakeholders or, most importantly, passengers. This further strengthens the Committee's desire for Translink to become an increasingly self-funding entity.”
“If anyone is disingenuous in the whole charade of the budget, it is Minister Kennedy and his Department. The routes identified for cessation or a reduction in services will negatively impact on the most vulnerable and those living in our rural areas. How can the Minister for Regional Development convince our citizens that he and his Department are committed to Programme for Government (PFG) targets for rural poverty and social inclusion? <BR /> <BR />In evidence sessions for the Committee's inquiry into comprehensive public transport delivery structures, officials reluctantly agreed that the current legislation allows Translink to cherry-pick its routes. It would appear that this reluctance has been abandoned by the Department, which is essentially saying, "Translink, go ahead.”
“<BR /> <BR />Secondly, I find it rich that the Department accused the Committee of being disingenuous, particularly when the Hansard report of the Committee meeting shows that the permanent secretary and his officials were less than forthcoming about the fact that the list even existed. The Hansard report shows that the permanent secretary stated that he did not have a list, that there was a process, that Translink had a list, that he did not have the list with him to give to the Committee and that there was an indicative list. When pushed to release it to the Committee, they suggested that it be exempted under freedom of information, and that those who were being so severely impacted on should be denied the opportunity to voice their opinions.”
“The Department has accused the Committee of being disingenuous in suggesting that the permanent secretary, at a briefing on 29 November, had not asked for the list of towns threatened with total discontinuation of bus services to be kept confidential. First, I believe that it is wrong for the Department to have allowed every single town and village in Northern Ireland to wonder whether they were on the Minister's hit list. We should have been informed, and the public should have been informed, and there should have been an informed debate on those particular issues; something that the Minister and his officials seem to shy away from.”
“However, once again, we are critical of the scaremongering undertaken by Minister Kennedy and his Department in stating that the proposed reductions would:”
“Imposing a further reduction in the ability to invest will not convince the European Commission that we are serious about addressing the issue but will, rather, almost inevitably lead to the certainty of infraction proceedings. <BR /> <BR />I turn my attention to the provision of public transport. I will immediately state that the Committee continues to support the Executive on their decision to fund the concessionary fares scheme. The Committee is also pleased that the Department is finally sitting up and taking notice of the substantial Translink reserves. We fully endorse the continuing funding of reductions in Translink through those reserves and its other commercial activities and assets.”
“It is already woefully underfunded and facing a historical and pre-devolution multibillion-pound deficit in respect of its capital investment. Its investment programme is independently established through the Utility Regulator, which has set a very challenging programme of efficiencies over the next control period that will bring it to 2021. <BR /> <BR />We question, therefore, the rationalisation of imposing further cuts on NI Water and the absence of strong contingency plans in relation to water quality in the coming years. The risk of infraction proceedings, particularly in relation to the ongoing pollution of Belfast lough, is already significant.”
“You can dress it up as much as you like by saying that he abstained from the Executive vote on the Budget, but the reality is that he did not vote against it. The reality is that he took his allocation, and the reality is that he sensationalised it through attacking the most vulnerable in our society. <BR /> <BR />If I may, I will touch on some specific elements contained in the Department's draft budget. The Committee is extremely troubled at the Department's proposals with regard to the reduction in the Northern Ireland Water allocation. Northern Ireland Water has changed significantly from the bumbling bureaucratic beast of the freeze/thaw period into an organisation that is significantly closer to closing the efficiency gap between it and its counterparts in England and Wales.”
“It is the image of a pensioner standing on a gnarled and frozen footpath by the side of a ravaged, potholed road that may never be repaired, waiting for a bus that may never arrive, and standing under a broken street light that may never be fixed. That is the reality that the Minister and his Department have presented — the reality that makes no attempt to protect our most vulnerable citizens and the reality that faces our most isolated. <BR /> <BR />Let us not beat about the bush. The Minister may have scurried off to complain on the news and to the press about his budget. However, it was a budget that he agreed should be punitive and a budget that he agreed against the allocation provided by the Executive.”
“I am particularly grateful to the Committee for Finance and Personnel for allowing me to debate the draft Budget today, because it is an opportunity that the Minister for Regional Development denied me and my colleagues on the Committee. Instead, he chose to inform the Committee of his sensationalist and draconian budget by email approaching 5.00 pm on the evening of 29 November, before skulking off to appear on the 6.00 pm news and wave his brand of mass hysteria. <BR /> <BR />Listening to the Minister on the news and having subsequently scrutinised the budget proposals set out by DRD, one image sticks in my mind.”
“I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate in my capacity as the Chair of the Committee for Regional Development.”
“I listened to what the Minister said about keeping the money. I hope that the Minister is not using that as an excuse not to apply for the money. There was a debate in the House last week about the A6. Have there been any applications to draw down any EU funding for that project?”
“I thank the only Member who made a contribution. To be fair to the Member, in his remarks he described the conclusion as "reasonable". All the Members who represent each of the parties on the Committee had an opportunity to make their contribution. I commend the report as submitted to the House.”
“After careful consideration, the Committee concluded that no changes should be made to the current procedures for supplementary questions permitted during topical Question Time. <BR /> <BR />The Committee conducted a thorough and comprehensive review of the topical questions process. The Committee asks that the Assembly agree the report and give its approval to proceed with drafting amendments to Standing Orders to implement the recommendations set out in it. I thank members of the Committee for their considered deliberations during the review and all who made a contribution. I look forward to today’s debate and commend the report to the House.”
“<BR /> <BR />The final issue considered by the Committee was the use of supplementary questions, and whether enhanced scrutiny could be achieved by allowing Members other than the Member who had posed the initial topical question to ask them. Although a number of stakeholders indicated that they would be content if such a change were introduced, they also said that such a step would likely reduce the number of topical questions covered in the time permitted. In forming a view on the matter, the Committee weighed the benefit afforded to other Members if extra supplementary questions were permitted against the detriment to Members drawn in the ballot should their question not be reached.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee also considered whether restrictions on who can ask topical questions should be introduced. Again, stakeholder opinion was mixed. The Executive did not offer an agreed opinion, with some Ministers strongly opposed to any restriction, suggesting that it would inhibit the rights of Members from certain parties to hold all Ministers to account. Some Ministers, however, supported the introduction of a partial restriction, similar to that in force for questions for oral answer under Standing Order 20(7), whereby the first question may not be asked by a Member from the same party as the Minister. The Committee concurs with that view and therefore recommends that Standing Orders be amended to include a similar restriction for topical questions that mirrors Standing Order 20(7).”
“<BR /> <BR />The review also considered whether any further admissibility criteria should be introduced and whether there should be a definition of "topicality". Ministers were in favour of introducing a specific definition, but other stakeholders were not. That includes the former Speaker, who said that it would be difficult for him to be aware of every emerging departmental or constituency issue and that he would therefore be hard-pressed to rule on admissibility in the Chamber. Having taken into account the balance of opinion expressed, and bearing in mind that one of the aims of topical Question Time was to achieve spontaneity, the Committee concluded that no additional admissibility criteria or definition of "topicality" should be introduced.”
“Having taken into account the balance of opinion expressed, the Committee concluded that the current breakdown of time allocated at Question Time should be retained. The Committee believes that that area warrants further consideration and has therefore recommended that the matter be subject to a further review after a six-month period. <BR /> <BR />Evidence provided by the junior Ministers indicated that there may be benefit in Ministers having advance notice of the topic to be raised, as that might prove helpful in enhancing answers. The matter was not raised as a concern in any other submissions, so the Committee was content to recommend no change to the current procedures for advance notice at topical Question Time.”
“The revised order of Question Time, with topical questions following the listed questions for oral answer, has been seen as an improvement, and the Committee recommends no change to the existing order. <BR /> <BR />There was general agreement in the stakeholder submissions that the 45 minutes allocated at Question Time to each Minister was appropriate, and the Committee recommends no change to that. <BR /> <BR />One issue that was raised in all stakeholder responses relates to the balance of time allocated to topical questions and listed questions for oral answer. A variety of views was expressed by stakeholders as to what the breakdown of time should be. Although some were in favour of increasing the length of time given to topical questions, others were not.”
“You will see from the report that the statistical information covers the last session from September 2013 to July 2014. I will perhaps highlight some of the key findings in the report. <BR /> <BR />In the last session, 1,556 topical questions and supplementary questions were put to Ministers during topical Question Time. Initial fears that Ministers would be unable to respond effectively to that type of spontaneous questioning have not been realised. <BR /> <BR />Having considered the statistical information and evidence provided, the Committee concluded that topical Question Time has provided a valuable additional opportunity to hold Ministers and Departments to account and that it should be retained largely unchanged.”
“On behalf of the Committee on Procedures, I am pleased to bring to the House today the Committee’s report on its review of topical questions. When the Assembly agreed to the introduction of topical questions, it was agreed that the Committee on Procedures should review the process after a six-month trial period. <BR /> <BR />Members will be aware that a single-issue review was carried out in November 2013 following concerns about the positioning of topical questions before listed oral questions. That review resulted in topical Question Time being moved to the 15-minute slot after Assembly questions to each Minister. That did not preclude the need for a full review of the process, and the report sets out the findings of that full review. <BR /> <BR />To inform the Committee’s review, data was collected throughout the review period.”
“It is not necessary for me to travel on it very often; however, I have sympathy with those who have to make that journey regularly. I also have sympathy with the people who live in Dungiven having that level of congestion through their village. To that end, I want to put on record that I support the motion as amended.”
“People try to exit properties on to a road that was not designed for that purpose. While there are benefits for people travelling to and from Belfast and Londonderry, and that is a necessity, it has put many people's lives at risk on the Moneynick section of the road where there are in excess of 18,000 movements a day. It has made it very difficult for people exiting and entering their properties, and it has put many lives at risk. It is with regret that I have to say that I know someone who lost their life on that section of road. <BR /> <BR />So, whilst we can talk about connectivity and investment, I do not think that we should forget about the people who make the difficult journey on that section of road. I am not taking away from the Dungiven section. Unlike others, I have travelled on it on a few occasions.”
“I support the motion and the amendment. Like others, I listened to the debate, and many of the contributions came from the north-west. However, as many Members will know, I represent South Antrim, where the bottleneck starts on the M22. I support the principle of the motion, but I appreciate the difficulties, given the scale and enormity of the cost of the total project. That said, it has to start somewhere. <BR /> <BR />Listening to the contributions, it is interesting to hear people talking about jobs, unemployment, connectivity, infrastructure and investment. One area that has not been touched on, which is dear to me, given the area that I represent, is that, with regret, I have to say there have been a number of road deaths on the Moneynick section of the M22.”