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 23 of 24.
“I thank the Minister for that answer. Minister, you will not be surprised by Belfast International Airport's disappointment in Tourism Ireland. Indeed, I share that disappointment as a representative from that area, given that it promotes Ireland as a whole and describes the gateway being through Dublin. Given the amount of money that your Department puts into that department, what can you do to try to make it market Northern Ireland much better?”
“I hope that I do not look like Gordon Dunne.”
“I thank the Minister for the answer. Does the Minister accept — I am sure that she does not — that, sometimes, it seems that Rivers Agency is more reactive that proactive? We are coming into the time of the year when there is a higher likelihood of flooding. Are you minded, Minister, to make it more proactive than reactive?”
“I thank the Minister for such a brief statement. I note that his statement says that the Council raised the matter of the HGV levies and the perceived impact that they may have on hauliers from the Republic coming to Northern Ireland. However, did the Minister raise the not perceived but very real fact that there are tolls in the Republic of Ireland and that they have an impact on Northern Ireland hauliers travelling down there? <BR /> <BR />Can the Minister provide the House with details of the greenways working group that he appears to have established but that some of us are maybe not familiar with as yet?”
“I appreciate the Minister giving way. I know that you are moving on to DCAL, but in your Department, we are some weeks past, and you said that you have ruled some out. Is the Minister prepared to say on the record today who has not been ruled out, whether the wastewater treatment works has not been entirely ruled out and where NIEA is at with those samples? The Member opposite has stated the number of years it has taken to get an outcome on these.”
“<BR /> <BR />The people who are in the Public Gallery are not here tonight for tea and sympathy. I think that they want to hear the Minister coming forward with sound suggestions on how we will tackle the problem. We have talked about it before, and we could come back here in three months' time and talk about the same thing. We need action from DOE, DRD and DARD. The sooner the three Departments knock their heads together and try to take a coordinated approach to prevent incidents such as this happening again, the better. It is better for the Sixmilewater, and it will be better for all the watercourses in Northern Ireland. Until it is sorted, all the tea and sympathy that we can give will make absolutely no difference. We need action on the rivers, and we need it now.”
“<BR /> <BR />Unlike the Member opposite, I was a fisherman many years ago when I was a young lad, and, when I was at the Sixmilewater, I was struck by the passion that those young lads had about fishing. I have family who regularly come from England and bring people to fish our rivers in Northern Ireland, so what we have here is attracting people. We have a rich resource and some good fishing grounds in Northern Ireland, and there is tourist potential for that. However, if such incidents are allowed to continue, what we have we will lose, because, unfortunately, it takes the rivers some time to recover. I note that some Members said today that the pollution flowed past quickly in this incident, but what about the next one? That is what alarms me most.”
“I know that another representation is being made to each of the South Antrim representatives on an incident on the upper side of Glenavy, where there has been a report of another fish kill. There has been huge investment there by anglers, just as there has been a lot of investment by anglers on this stretch of river. We had another incident earlier this year, and it is believed that the person responsible has been guilty of polluting before. What does that say? Does it say that you can continually pollute? Pollute, pollute, pay a small fine and pollute again. It is time that you, Minister, and your Department did something to prevent that. Discharges are happening and have happened, and, if someone has been found guilty, something has to be done to prevent them using the discharge opportunity to go into our watercourse.”
“Up until next year, Minister, you have power over planning. I have always been intrigued by the fact that DOE's Planning Service passed so much development on the edge of the river. Look at Grainger's Mill on the road into Antrim and the flooding incidents there. Look at the pollution that that has to cause. Once the river breaches its banks, gets in around developments and enters the sewerage system and oil tanks, it is pretty obvious that that pollution will enter a river. As a public representative, I have always been disappointed at how the agencies in the consultation process have approached the planning process. They do not give any consideration to our rivers. <BR /> <BR />Some Members talked about what the angling clubs have done.”
“Regardless of whether the treatment works turns out to be guilty or not guilty, it needs to be more transparent in its operation. As my colleague said, there has been a suggestion of investment for that plant. There are also suggestions of a requirement of investment for other plants. The sooner that the Minister brings that to fruition, the better, because, if it was not the treatment works this time, there is every possibility that it could be it in the future. We are not going to prevent such incidents until proper investment is made in the plant. <BR /> <BR />My colleague from South Antrim mentioned discharging and consent to discharge. He makes a very interesting point. The Minister is here to respond today. One of the things that strikes me is that, although this was the Sixmilewater, we just have to travel further towards Antrim.”
“It was nearly as if they were in defence mode — "We'll keep you guys out, because we don't want you to see what is going on in here". I am led to believe that someone from the fishing fraternity was there before me. I am unsure of what sort of reception that individual got, but, when I arrived at the gate, there was not a very welcoming reception. It was not one that said, "We've an open-door policy. Come on in and see that we are not guilty. We're actually trying to work with you to prevent incidents such as this". From a government point of view and a public representative point of view, it was very disappointing. There was not much transparency at the waste water treatment plant. <BR /> <BR />That does not take away from the responsibilities of others.”
“Everyone from the fishing fraternity who was there was interested in that stretch of the river. They certainly were not introducing other fish on that day. Anything that was lifted out that day came from that stretch of the river. <BR /> <BR />I am not necessarily trying to get into the blame game, but we have had agencies involved in pollution before. Departments have been a bit cloak and dagger about some of this stuff, because the first fish that were identified that day, certainly up to the time that I was there, were identified downstream from the waste water treatment works. That would lead you to the very strong conclusion that the pollution was coming from that facility. As a public representative who was there that day and went to the waste water treatment works, I did not see cooperation: I did not get past the gate.”
“They tried to explain the responsibility rather than get on with the job of trying to find the source of the problem. Many of the anglers knew that, if the fish kill did not happen during the night, it certainly happened in the early hours of the morning. However, DCAL officials arrived at 1.00 pm and spoke to some of the fishermen in, I would say, an argumentative manner. The fishermen thought that they were doing their best by bringing some of the fish out and preventing them going further down river. I also thought that the fishermen, particularly some of the young lads, were doing their best. The Member opposite gave us a very detailed account of the number of fish involved. However, DCAL discounted any of the fish that already had been lifted out.”
“I am happy to follow on from the comments that my South Antrim colleague has made. I was fortunate — unfortunate, I should say — to be there that day. I say "unfortunate", because none of us wants to be there when such devastation is caused to a river. We have anglers in the Public Gallery tonight. On the day of the incident, I noticed that there were some very young anglers present. They are the anglers of the future. Seeing their disappointment struck me more than anything else. <BR /> <BR />I have listened to the other contributions. Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, your colleague on the Benches opposite talked about DCAL's responsibility. Among the things that struck me that day were, first, the time that it took DCAL to come out and, secondly, the time that it took its officials to act when they got there.”
“I appreciate that I will get an opportunity to speak in a few moments, but you mentioned farmers and smoking guns. I am pleased that the Minister of the Environment is here today. Does the Member agree that the paltry fines for people who have been caught and prosecuted do not deter them from doing it again? There are anglers in the Gallery today, and some of us have been approached about another discharge into a watercourse in the same vicinity. When people are prosecuted, they get only a paltry fine, which does not deter them from doing it again.”
“I note what you say about the actions of the officials. You touched on the fact that the issue is cross-departmental. Do you agree that there has to be a more joined-up approach, with all Departments working together? I was there that day, and they were working hundreds of yards apart and not joining forces.”
“I welcome the Member's answer, as I do the answers to both supplementary questions, about the Commission's desire to drive down costs. However, is there not a conflict, given the answer to the first question, about translating some of this into Irish, which will be an additional cost to the Commission and, as such, is a waste of money?”
“Following on from one of the first questions, how many companies tendered for the original contract?”
“I thank the Minister for that answer. I am sure that he was as surprised as we were when, after he left the Committee last week, Translink came to the table to tell us that the observers were more than observers and had full access to the papers. Minister, when your departmental officials describe themselves as observers but Translink come on board and say that they are not just observers but have full access to papers and can speak and actually sit at the same table as the project board, what are you going to do with your officials?”
“I accept the Minister's answer on the A6. However, there are safety problems in relation to the Moneynick section, and, maybe because money has not been available, we are not at an advanced stage. Have you or your Department any plans to do any other work to cut down the number of accidents on that stretch of the road?”
“<BR /> <BR />Will the Minister explain to the House why he is washing his hands of the procurement process that he and his officials defended over the last 12 months? Will he also explain how he will engage with Translink whilst looking at how the project will be costed within his Department's capital budget? Finally, will he outline whether the relationship between Translink and the Department is a case of the tail wagging the dog?”
“I thank the Minister for affording me an opportunity to meet him to discuss the statement this morning. Unfortunately, due to business in the House, I was unable to make that meeting. <BR /> <BR />I listened to the statement, and the Minister repeated the word "disappointed" a few times. Rather than feeling disappointed, I think that he and his officials should feel culpable for the shambles of the way in which the Department handled the project. The Minister has been a cheerleader for the procurement process over the last 12 months and highlighted it as a model in the past, yet, in his statement, he alluded to the shambolic nature of the project and how Translink led it. That is very unfortunate and disappointing. It certainly is unfortunate and disappointing for members of the Committee for Regional Development and the wider public.”
“Can the Minister tell us whether the Regional Development Minister has agreed to access Translink's reserves of £55 million to lessen the pressures on his Department?”
“Yes. I welcome the fact that the Minister has minimised it to 4% and also added £10 million to concessionary fares —”
“In terms of the response that the Minister gave earlier to Mike Nesbitt, I am sure that he is also surprised by the response from the Regional Development Minister on the Budget. He described the Budget as savage even though he was advocating for the Tories in the last election. I welcome the fact that the Minister has not only minimised the reductions to 4% —”
“There are benefits from the A8 and everyone should welcome that. Will the Minister outline the additional cost of bypassing Ballynure? How much would have been saved by keeping it on line?”
“I am listening closely to the Member. Whilst we support the motion, it is more about the forensic analysis of the Minister's budget and how some of us see it as an easy touch. The Minister will defend that. I accept the point about safety, and I think that is why I can support the motion. However, when you are addressing the rest of your comments, Mr Byrne, will you tell the House how your party can prop up Sinn Féin on welfare reform and what weight you are adding to that in respect of safety, potholes and all the other issues that are raised in all our constituency offices? It is your party that is helping to prop up Sinn Féin to prevent welfare reform coming to the House.”
“The Member who made the last intervention made a point about how bad in-year monitoring rounds were. However, does it not sound a bit hypocritical for the Member to defend his Minister, given that the Minister has already defended the good use of in-year monitoring and the valuable contribution that it makes? He is on record as saying that.”
“I thank the Member for giving way on that particular point. The previous Member who spoke said that people are losing their jobs because of these cuts, but what they are not recognising is the number of jobs that will be lost because of the non-implementation of welfare reform, which will have a much greater impact. While this situation is bad, it impacts on a small number of jobs. The impact of welfare reform will be much greater through jobs lost. The party opposite fails to recognise that.”
“I know that the Member does not want to get into the depth of the argument on this — I acknowledge that they were a soft touch — but does he not accept that his party's position on welfare reform has left this Department and other Departments in a very difficult position in trying to find the £87 million? Yes, as I said, those may have been a soft touch, but, if your party would face up to the reality of welfare reform, that would be £87 million that Departments would not have to find.”
“<BR /> <BR />In closing, I will maybe make a few remarks as a member of the DUP —”
“They will have also seen that, for every million they have removed, between 13 and 22 specialist jobs will be lost to the sector, and that will hinder the recovery should the budgets become available in future. <BR /> <BR />My colleague referred to Translink. One of the interesting things that turned up in that monitoring round when we talked to the Department was that the accounts showed a cash balance of £56 million. Of course, that was reported in Hansard on 2 July 2014. My predecessor, Mr Spratt, had suggested in the past that there was a cosiness in the Translink/DRD relationship, and I have to say that I saw that during the October monitoring briefing. Yes, they need £15 million for in-year payments and are projecting a £9 million loss, but that still leaves a £33 million cash balance.”
“Thank you. I will cover some of those points as I speak on. <BR /> <BR />Nowhere in his business plan is there a suggestion that footway and carriage maintenance, cutting grass on verges, gully emptying, road marking, traffic light maintenance or the suspension of external contractors for street lighting are departmental ambitions. They are not, but they are easy and emotive and that is why they were chosen. There was no forensic analysis of the departmental budget lines and no assessment of the severity of the risk, and I think that Members will appreciate that those points were all raised when we had the briefing two weeks ago. The Department would easily have seen the cost increase in public liability claims and payouts that result from not cutting the budget but removing these essential services.”
“The Department has recognised in its business plan that less funding being made available during the in-year monitoring process might have an impact on its ambitions as set out in the plan. It is difficult, therefore, to reach any conclusion other than that the Minister and his departmental officials went for the soft touches when applying for his portion of the welfare penalties.”
“The welfare penalties have impacted on all Departments. DRD differs slightly in the way that its budget is allocated, with the in-year monitoring rounds being used to top up the departmental budget rather than allocations being provided at the beginning of the year. That process, of course, was collectively agreed at the Executive, of which the Minister is a member, and, indeed, in his departmental business plan, he described that approach as strategic and a valuable opportunity to secure additional funding. As stated, the Minister and his departmental officials agreed that with the full knowledge of the audit report on structural maintenance in 2000 and despite the comments of the then chief executive on the 2009 annual report:”
“On the basis that the starting budget for roads maintenance this financial year was £56 million, with £20 million or so being allocated in June, we currently have a deficit of £57 million, and this adds another £90 million to that backlog. Again, the condition of our roads is starting to decline. <BR /> <BR />At this point, I hasten to add that, between June 2011 and January 2014, the Minister and his Department made 72 bids in the monitoring rounds and the Executive honoured almost 62% of those bids. The Minister is on the record as saying that, in the past three years, the Department has been very successful in funding road maintenance. Of course, this success has coincided with funding being available, which we all know now is not necessarily the case.”
“That £133 million is to keep our roads as they are and to keep them in a condition where it was reported that, in 2009, 46% of the trunks roads were below the UK skidding resistance investigatory level. Almost half of the roads were assessed as being unsafe. On top of this, there was a substantial backlog in respect of the structural maintenance programme that currently stands at approximately £830 million. In a meeting that I had with the departmental permanent secretary and his senior management team last week, I was advised that for every pound below the £133 million required to maintain the network another £1·60 would be added to the backlog.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion in my role as the Chair of the Committee for Regional Development. It was timely that, at my first meeting as Chair, the Committee received a briefing on the October monitoring round. This was the first time formally that the outcome of the June monitoring round was presented to the Committee. Of course, members will have been aware of the outcomes because the Minister had previously detailed them through the press through the use of, quite frankly, very emotive pronouncements during the summer and in the House. I will not use this ploy; rather, I will support the thrust of the motion by stating the facts as they are. <BR /> <BR />First, the overall annual budgetary requirement for just maintaining our roads is, as I think has been said, £133 million.”
“I thank the Minister for his answer, although it is vague on detail for South Antrim. What effect will the ongoing problems with the Budget have on the totality of his Department?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that maybe the Alliance Party's attempt here is to protect the chairman of the CRC, who is a former member, if not an existing member, of the Alliance Party? Is it not an attempt on its part to save his face?”
“You say that sectarianism is wrong. Would you then say that the comments of the act at that event were sectarian and were wrong?”
“In the past, contracts were under the Ministry of the SDLP. I have no problem standing beside the Minister when he comes forward with a suggestion, whether it be from the GGF or Turkington's, and advances an idea that can save £15 million.”
“I could put that question to Sinn Féin, Michael Copeland and, I am sure, Jim Allister. I am sure that it is worth noting that Jim will back Sinn Féin today in the lobbies on this motion. <BR /> <BR />I make no apologies for standing beside the Minister, who was prepared to come forward with the suggestion to halt a contract. It is interesting to note that, in the past —”
“What that says to me and, I am sure, to many other contractors out there today, is that, if they have a suggestion for how to bring about savings for Northern Ireland, they should just keep it to themselves. What this company has done is talked itself out of work. It has given the representative of the Craigavon area time to sully a very large employer in Northern Ireland. I think that it is disgraceful. <BR /> <BR />It is also interesting to note comments by those who said that they did not come with a predetermined outcome. I think that Mrs Kelly was one of them. She talked about the second stage and the third stage. If she had given me the intervention, maybe she would have answered my question, which would have been this: can you tell us now your predetermined outcome for stages two and three? We already know what the outcome will be.”
“The Member referred to the redecoration grants in those areas. What he did not say was that the individuals came forward with a suggestion for how that could be done, a suggestion that also protected the workforce fitting the windows. Therefore, not only are those Members not interested in saving £15 million, they are not concerned about the individuals who carried out the contracts or how they fitted the windows in the first place. <BR /> <BR />Turkington's came forward with a suggestion and the contract was suspended, but none of the Members opposite noted that the company did not benefit by one shilling. The contract was re-advertised and re-awarded, and the company that put forward a suggestion to save Northern Ireland £15 million got nothing.”
“The suggestions put forward by those individuals related to the method of fitting the windows. The suggestion for the glazing and not fitting the units in their entirety came afterwards.”
“She failed to give way when I asked. <BR /> <BR />It is also interesting to note that the previous Member to speak said that it was irrelevant. So, to Sinn Féin, a £15 million saving is irrelevant. I hope that the general public who take time to listen or, as others have encouraged, to read the report, note Sinn Féin's comments today. When Departments are struggling because of that party's inaction on welfare reform and a company such as Turkington's has the foresight to come forward with a suggestion that would save Northern Ireland £15 million, its suggestion is abysmal. <BR /> <BR />It is also interesting to note that Mr McCann talked about those deprived areas and said that there seemed to be just decoration grants for repairs. That was not the case. It is obvious that the outcome was predetermined by some of the Members opposite.”
“No. I asked for an intervention when the individual was on her feet —”
“Maybe, if the cameras had focused on the representative from that area, they would have seen that she laughed when I commented on the reputation of that large employer in the Craigavon area.”
“That intervention is very useful. The behaviour is sectarian in its nature. I am sure that the cameras will not focus on it because the BBC has been interested in only one aspect of the issue and has not been particularly interested in the inquiry.”