Christopher Stalford
South Belfast · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“In the United States of America, you have two schools of thought: the expansionists — the people who do not believe that the Founding Fathers should be taken at their word, or that the Constitution should be interpreted in the strict sense; and the originalists — those who do.”
“Let me make some progress. <BR /> <BR />The key point in the brief is the "particular circumstances" of Northern Ireland. That is, and should be, central to everything that we examine.”
“I do not think that it ever got particularly bad-tempered, so I am disappointed at the tone that was struck in the opening of the debate and in subsequent contributions, but I am not going to lie down like a dog and take it. I am not going to take the rewriting of history.”
“There is one absolute right in law, and that is the right not to be tortured. That is an absolute right that is accepted as a universal right. How many people did the fellow travellers of the party opposite deny that human right to? So I am not going to take that from any Member opposite when it comes to rights.”
“I have stated my position and made it clear that I think that we have a strong human rights framework in Northern Ireland. We have two bodies, established in law, that are dedicated to the protection of human rights and equality. We are one of the most human rights- and fairness-compliant societies in the world. It is important.”
“I appreciate the Member's giving way. She and I served together for many years on Belfast City Council, where people from different and disparate backgrounds had to work together because nobody had a majority. That was just the nature of the place. She talked about respect and disrespect.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,239 lines we hold for Christopher Stalford, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 25.
“I have stated my position and made it clear that I think that we have a strong human rights framework in Northern Ireland. We have two bodies, established in law, that are dedicated to the protection of human rights and equality. We are one of the most human rights- and fairness-compliant societies in the world. It is important. The debate will resume in the new term, and that may present an opportunity for further discussion to see where we go with it, so I am not shutting the door on it, but let us not try to drag this down into rancorous acrimony, because that will not serve any useful or helpful purpose.”
“I do not think that it ever got particularly bad-tempered, so I am disappointed at the tone that was struck in the opening of the debate and in subsequent contributions, but I am not going to lie down like a dog and take it. I am not going to take the rewriting of history. There was genuine engagement, on my part, in that Committee and its work. <BR /> <BR />I thank the Clerk and everyone else who contributed to the work of the Committee. I thank the people who gave evidence. We live in a democracy; it is OK to sometimes have different views. There may well be a prevailing consensus; that is fine. If there is a prevailing consensus, that is fair enough, but it is never unacceptable to hold to a minority view, and, on these issues, evidently, we do.”
“Let me make some progress. <BR /> <BR />The key point in the brief is the "particular circumstances" of Northern Ireland. That is, and should be, central to everything that we examine. When Dermot Nesbitt, someone who was in the room when the Belfast Agreement was negotiated, came to give evidence to the Committee, he detailed what he meant, and what was meant, by "particular circumstances". That is essential. <BR /> <BR />I spoke to Mr Nesbitt about this earlier: I fear that it may be time to insert a new chapter into the Standing Orders on the roles and responsibilities of Chairs of Committees, especially this Ad Hoc Committee. It is important that Chairs know what their roles and functions are. I am disappointed. We had valuable and useful discussions in the Committee.”
“The legislation that is being passed on human trafficking and exploitation makes that clear. Those are already in law. To some extent, section 75 already addresses the key point.”
“Absolutely none. In Northern Ireland, we have, in law, some of the strongest protections of rights in the world. Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act makes that clear.”
“No, perhaps later. <BR /> <BR />If this, in effect, becomes our constitution, it will have implications for the judicial appointments process, and it will be perfectly legitimate, in a democracy, for people to ask those who are being appointed to high courts how they would interpret the constitution.”
“In the United States of America, you have two schools of thought: the expansionists — the people who do not believe that the Founding Fathers should be taken at their word, or that the Constitution should be interpreted in the strict sense; and the originalists — those who do. Generally, the people who are nominated by the Republican Party are originalists, and the people who are nominated by the Democratic Party are expansionists. There are two schools of thought. We all know that, if you get two lawyers into a room, regardless of whether it is in the United States of America or elsewhere, there will be two schools of thought on whether a black crow is white. We know that, if we enact law and it ends up in front of the courts, there will be schools of thought. However, if this, in effect, becomes our constitution —”
“The longer the arguments and the debate went on, the more similarities I could see with those processes, arguments and debates. <BR /> <BR />One of the arguments — Ms Ní Chuilín disparages the United States of America and says that it is a bad example — was that, if you produce a bill of rights, you are, in effect, producing a written constitution. She said that it will come through the courts — how many of her colleagues went through them? — and it may well do that, but that will then require legal interpretation.”
“There is one absolute right in law, and that is the right not to be tortured. That is an absolute right that is accepted as a universal right. How many people did the fellow travellers of the party opposite deny that human right to? So I am not going to take that from any Member opposite when it comes to rights. <BR /> <BR />There is a historical context to the issue. I and Ms Bradshaw, who was the Deputy Chair of the Committee, have been engaged from the very start. I do not know who it was that either of us offended in our respective parties, but we were nominated to serve on the Bill of Rights Forum. The Bill of Rights Forum at that time was tasked with thrashing through some of the issues that we are thrashing through now.”
“I mentioned that I sat on Belfast council. I sat across from people in Belfast council whose charge sheets, had I printed them off, I would have been able to paper the City Hall with. I will not be lectured on rights by anyone from the Benches opposite — absolutely not. There is one absolute right in law —”
“I appreciate the Member's giving way. She and I served together for many years on Belfast City Council, where people from different and disparate backgrounds had to work together because nobody had a majority. That was just the nature of the place. She talked about respect and disrespect. What message of disrespect is conveyed when the person who opened the debate tweeted a joke about her former colleague, the then deputy First Minister, taking a gun to go and meet the Queen, someone to whom I pledge my allegiance?”
“The Member is absolutely right in saying that people's identities are multifaceted. However, will she accept that there was a time when the only people in the entirety of the European Union whom it was legally permissible to discriminate against in relation to employment were people who happened to come from a Protestant community background and were applying for a job in the police?”
“Does the Member agree that provision of a bill of rights is, in essence, the creation of a written constitution and that, as we have seen in the United States of America, a written constitution invites differing interpretations? The situation in America now is that it is a deeply polarised society, where the appointment of justices to the Supreme Court falls along vicious partisan lines, because the country has a written constitution and two schools of thought as to how it should be interpreted.”
“Pivoting to the other end of the constituency, the Minister will be aware that you have to wait for roughly 30 minutes or 45 minutes for a bus in the Belvoir estate and that they do not go directly into the centre of town. Will she look carefully at improving the frequency of and access to buses for the Belvoir estate?”
“If the Minister could commit to that, it would be much appreciated.”
“I am grateful to the Minister for her answer. My concern is that engagement with officials is one thing, but it would be good — I am sure that the Minister will not have any objection to it — for the Minister to meet business leaders and owners on the Ormeau Road to see for herself the issues that they are raising. I ask that not to score points but in a friendly way, so that we can get Belfast Rapid Transit right. If the Minister would commit to that —”
“Will the Minister speak to that line? Does she agree that it will be extremely demoralising for the motivated and dedicated people working in the Prison Service to read that today?”
“The Minister knows that, for more than 50 years, to be employed in the Prison Service in Northern Ireland has carried with it a much more significant risk than being employed in a prison service in other parts of the United Kingdom. It is important that we place on record our appreciation for the staff and the work that they are undertaking. The Minister has detailed some of the extremely difficult situations that the staff have been facing at their place of work. I guide the Minister to paragraph 4.65 of the report:”
“I am grateful to the Minister for the grouping as it brings me from the bottom of the list to the top. <BR /> <BR />The Minister has detailed the economic cost of £900 million, and we all know what our health service could do with £900 million. There is also a political dimension to this. Can the Minister confirm that there is not a single unionist elected representative in the Assembly who supports the provisions of the protocol? We never, ever will.”
“I thank the deputy First Minister for that positive-sounding answer. In the context of heading in the right direction, does she agree that the renewal of further restrictive powers that reside presently with the Department of Health should not be undertaken?”
“The conduct of foreign policy is clearly not a devolved matter, but we can decide who we do business with. Does the junior Minister agree that it is important to have an ethical policy, one in which we are very careful about engaging with countries with appalling human rights records?”
“The previous answer was a fine example of the esprit de corps that undercuts this coalition.”
“Having called for the rigorous implementation of the protocol, the deputy First Minister now assures us that she is seeking ways to change it and make it better. The deputy First Minister will be aware that the operation of these institutions arises out of New Decade, New Approach (NDNA), which contains a commitment that she signed up to, along with all other parties, to frictionless trade within the United Kingdom. Does the deputy First Minister accept that there will be no return to "As you were" until that commitment is fulfilled?”
“Does the Member agree, in all sincerity, that comparing training for working with children who have disabilities or autism with training to inculcate a particular ethos as to how education is delivered is not comparing like with like?”
“I am grateful to the Member for giving way. Subsection 10(1) uses the word "must", and 10(2) provides the word "may". I have heard the explanation that she gave for that, but does she not accept that that opens up the clear possibility of legal action against the Department by those who will interpret 10(1) in terms of "must"? The Member must establish where the balance lies between "must" and "may", if that clause goes through as it is.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Would the Member agree that it is outrageous to suggest that it is only possible to target segregation in our society through increased provision of integrated education? Will she suggest that the Member for East Belfast should go to schools in his constituency, like Ashfield Boys' High School, Grosvenor Grammar School, Ashfield Girls' High School and Campbell College, and tell them that, because they are outside of the Alliance Party's chosen and favoured sector, they do not have a role to play in targeting division in our society?”
“I am grateful to my colleague for giving way. The regulations include the words "targets", "benchmarks", "data capture" and "monitoring" etc. Does my colleague agree that the content of the clause, if implemented, will require the creation of an enormous bureaucratic structure in the Department of Education in order to cater for the demands that are laid in the legislation, which covers 10% of all school pupils? We will have an enormous bureaucratic structure looking after one in 10 children. The other 90%? They can swim alone.”
“I am grateful to the Member for giving way. Does she agree that those who would have been satisfied with tweaks to the legislation as was are basically living on a wing and a prayer and hoping for the best outcome rather than studying its content and seeing what it actually says?”
“I appreciate that, but, if something is not defined in the legislation, the Member's imaginings of what it means are solely content that exists between his ears. If it is not in the law, it is not in the law. Like John Lennon, you can imagine all you like, but, if it is not there, it is not there.”
“Will the Member give way? That is twice that we have had imagined interpretations of what the legislation says from the Member from Lagan Valley. Unless it is codified in law, imaginings and assurances on the Floor are worthless. If something is not defined in the Bill, it is not defined in the Bill.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker, just to confirm that a Member may choose not to be present to move an amendment, but, because that amendment is in the Order Paper, any Member can choose to move it. I just seek clarity on that.”
“I am grateful to the Member for giving way. Earlier in the debate, Mr Newton, a colleague of mine from East Belfast, referenced some research that was produced by the Assembly that said that — this is what I remember, and I am happy to correct the record if I am wrong — in excess of 95% of people who indicated a preference for an integrated school place got one. Secondly, does the Member agree that, when it comes to the allocation of places, it is wrong for integrated post-secondary schools to discriminate against children who did not go to integrated primary schools?”
“The important word in the sentences that were just spoken by the sponsor of the Bill is "system". The Bill is not about the development of an education system; it is about putting one education sector on hyperdrive at the expense of all the rest.”
“<BR /> <BR />If the legislation is passed, the consequences will be to discriminate against controlled and maintained schools. Rural constituencies, in particular, face all sorts of challenges in terms of school provision and numbers. I urge Members not to pass clauses 4 and 5. We all signed up to the review of education. The Alliance Party claims great credit for getting that in to New Decade, New Approach. Let that run its course. Do not jump the gun. There is a place for integrated education, but it should not be at the expense of controlled or maintained schools. <BR /> <BR />I will finish with this point. I am a parent. Parents have the right, and should continue to have the right, to send their children to a school of their choice. Fundamentally, clause 5 represents a threat to that right.”
“I can point to examples around the place where long-standing controlled primary schools seeking new buildings do not get the new buildings, but the nearest integrated school gets a new building because of the existing obligation on the Department to promote integrated education. That is an advantage that the local controlled primary school does not enjoy. Due to the provisions that already exist — when you provide new buildings and facilities, people vote with their feet — the integrated school will grow, but the existing school, which has been providing education for generations in an area, will wither and die. I have seen examples of that happening because of the existing provisions, but the Bill says that those provisions, which exist in law, to promote integrated education do not go far enough.”
“The Member has been here for much longer than I have. He really should know good manners. <BR /> <BR />The Bill refers to:”
“It demonstrates a deficiency in his argument that he has to resort to such behaviour, Mr Deputy Speaker.”
“No. Just let me make some progress. <BR /> <BR />Good-quality schools have been delivering —”
“There are two points. It does not say "aiming to meet"; it says "aiming to increase". The Member should read the Bill; it says "aiming to increase the demand". The Member knows the way in which increasing the demand will come about. I can think of situations where long-standing schools that have delivered quality education —”
“The Member's solution for that would be to promote one sector over all others, rather than for us striving for the worthy goal — I assume that we all believe in this goal — of trying to create a single educational aegis in which all our children are educated together. You will not achieve that goal by putting the integrated sector on steroids and promoting it to the disadvantage of everyone else. That will not achieve the goal. However, on the general principle, I absolutely agree that we should have a single educational sector that respects and values people's differences, but that goal of breaking down those divisions will not be achieved by this measure.”
“That was thrashed out a bit in the debate last night. There was an admission that the ethos of schools would be investigated to ensure that they were conforming to the expectations of the Bill sponsor. I have yet to see a school, anywhere in Northern Ireland, in which children have been inculcated in anything other than respect, tolerance and appreciation of diversity. It is unfair to the teachers — hard-working professionals — in all of the other sectors to suggest that those worthy goals can only be achieved through the vehicle of one sector, or that they can be achieved in a better way through the vehicle of one sector. I do not accept that.”
“We are dealing with finite budgets and all sorts of problems that are much wider than the integrated sector, and it is surely jumping the gun to try to ram this legislation through without considering the findings of the review of education, to which every party in this Chamber is committed. <BR /> <BR />I will go back to what the Transferor Representatives' Council said:”
“I do not dispute that. I suppose that I am trying to cut to the motivation rather than to the content, but I will get back to the content. <BR /> <BR />There is no doubt that this piece of legislation exists for the promotion of one sector. In my view, although not necessarily in the view of the Bill sponsor, that can only mean that it will be to the detriment of other sectors. That is particularly the case in the context of the announcement that we heard today that we need 2,000 special educational needs places in Northern Ireland. There are 200 schools that face closure because of the numbers, most of which are in rural communities. I wonder how many of those schools that are facing closure are in Strangford.”
“The entire purpose of this legislation is to focus on one sector in particular. During earlier debates, the sponsor of the Bill — I am happy to give way and be corrected if I am wrong. If I am quoting you wrongly, I apologise, but I think on one occasion you said, "I am here to speak for the integrated sector". The sponsor of the Bill has never hidden the fact that she is here to speak for the interests of one sector. That is what lies at the heart of this Bill.”
“As a representative for South Belfast, I can attest to just how true that is. Just because a school does not have the word "integrated" on the sign over the door does not mean that it is not an inclusive school or that the children who go to it do not enjoy an inclusive educational experience that exposes them to other identities, cultures and traditions. <BR /> <BR />In its submission to the Committee, the Transferor Representatives' Council said that:”
“The delegation from the Transferor Representatives' Council (TRC) included Dr Andrew Brown and Karen Jardine from the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, Dr Peter Hamill from the Church of Ireland and Dr Anita Gracie from the Methodist Church in Ireland. Dr Gracie said that TRC is very much in favour of "educating the whole community together" and added that:”
“According to its content. That is my addition. <BR /> <BR />Mr Campbell said that:”
“I say to them that it is perfectly compatible to oppose the provisions of these clauses, which will raise one sector above others. It is perfectly compatible to oppose clauses 4 and 5 and still believe in our children being educated together. <BR /> <BR />Mr Gerry Campbell, the chief executive of the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools spoke on the issue and described it as a Bill that might create a "two-tiered" education system. <BR /> <BR />Bishop Donal McKeown said that it was:”
“I shall give way once I make some progress. The Member needs to calm himself. <BR /> <BR />Support means promote, and promote means support. The Member can dance on the head of a pin all he likes, but let us be honest about the change that has taken place. In a previous debate, the Member for Upper Bann Mr O'Dowd gutted the content of the Bill and went through it clause by clause indicating how it was unacceptable. Other Members did the same, so how did we get to this point? Optics. This is for optics. <BR /> <BR />Parties that recognise the fundamental problems contained in clauses 4 and 5 are terrified to follow through on their convictions that they expressed in previous debates on the clauses for fear of being perceived to be against our children being educated together.”
“I will give way later. Would you calm yourself? The Member needs to calm himself.”