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 14 of 25.
“It is therefore vital that they are in the best possible position to attract and secure the best possible jobs and establish the best possible careers for themselves going forward, because the better that our young people do, the better that all of society in Northern Ireland will do. <BR /> <BR />Nobody could have foreseen the circumstances that are confronting us today. COVID has impacted on almost every aspect of every person's life in this country, and our young people undertaking GCSE, A-level and AS-level examinations have been hit particularly hard. It is also worth putting on the record in the House the extremely difficult situation facing students in fourth form and lower sixth as they go into a new school year. They will have to overcome significant challenges brought about by a loss of so much classroom learning time.”
“Mr Speaker, first, I welcome you back to your place. I declare an interest in this matter as I have a niece who received her A-level results last week. <BR /> <BR />It is important that all Members consider how it is that we came to this pass. We are in this position because we are in the middle of a global public health crisis. Little over five months ago, the Executive decided that schools should close. The decision was also taken to put vast swathes of our economy into deep freeze until the crisis passed. Young people affected by these decisions will be paying for them, through their taxes, for a very, very long time.”
“I appreciate the Member giving way, because Mr Lyttle was so reluctant to. Does the Member recall Mr Lyttle saying — it is in Hansard:”
“That was at the Education Committee on 22 April.”
“The Member will recall her colleague who is sitting on the Back Bench, Catherine Kelly, saying, in relation to teachers:”
“If it was a "fix" on 22 April, how can you say that you were warning about it for months?”
“I am grateful to the Member for giving way. He is, obviously, a member of the Education Committee. Does he recall, on 22 April — this is in Hansard — that his description of the model that was put in place was a:”
“The Member referred to road signs and then to the experience of his constituents. He knows that he is comparing apples with oranges. He is referring to the corporate marketing used by the council. That is a council decision. They are not the directional road signs. The sign that points people to Kilkeel is not in two languages. The Member knows that, and he is conflating one with the other.”
“Before the Minister resumes, may I respond?”
“I appreciate the junior Minister giving way. Will he return to the comments that he has just made? In the debate yesterday, it was implied, if not stated directly, that one Minister in the Executive was not in agreement with the Bill. Is the junior Minister stating now that there was unanimity in the Executive about the Bill coming before the House?”
“I appreciate the Member's giving way. In yesterday's debate, Mr Wells referenced the Casement Park development. I am sure that the Member would agree that what happened in that case was not that a ministerial decision was made but that local residents, in conjunction with their Assembly Member, campaigned and used the planning system to prevent a bad application going ahead? Therefore, the suggestion that a Minister could simply impose such a decision is not valid.”
“The Member will also be aware that it has section 75 implications and equality implications. If people object to such provision, as, I am sure, they would — he mentioned the town of Kilkeel, where, I am absolutely sure, they would — they have recourse to the law. Ministers have to act within the statute. Ministers are creatures of statute. They also have to act within the law, and the parameters of the law are clear around the specific issue that the Member has raised. This is becoming a pattern with the Member: setting up theoretical examples that are designed to frighten people. It is becoming boring.”
“I am grateful to the Member for giving way. No matter how intemperate or ranting Mr Beattie chooses to be, the fact of the matter is that, when he says "aided and abetted by some parties", he needs to look at the result of the Division yesterday. I think it was 73 Members to 10. When Mr Beattie talks about aided and abetted by other parties, I suggest that he does some basic mathematics.”
“That would arrive at the Executive because it touches on two Departments: Infrastructure and Communities.”
“No. I have been very generous. The Member accused me of being terrified to give way to him. I think that I have given way three times; certainly twice. I was generous with him yesterday as well. <BR /> <BR />Any decisions taken by a Minister outside the scope of the provisions will not be valid and will not have force, and that is clear to anyone who reads them. <BR /> <BR />The arguments have been well rehearsed; indeed, to some of those who protested yesterday that there had not been enough scrutiny, I say that, for a three-clause Bill, one of which is the title, the Assembly has exercised a very decisive level of scrutiny of this legislation. The arguments have been thrashed out. It is important that we move forward together.”
“Because it also falls under the remit of the Department of Justice. <BR /> <BR />It is important that any decision —.”
“Under these provisions, for any decision that is deemed to be significant, controversial or cross-cutting, if a Minister unilaterally assumes the power to themselves to take such a decision, that decision is not valid. It has no standing, because of the provisions that have been outlined by the junior Minister.”
“If provisions are being put in place that provide clarity and mean that we do not have a situation where, as has had to happen in the past, Ministers in the same Executive end up on opposing sides in a court case, that should be welcomed. It encourages the smoother and more effective operation of our Government, it encourages Ministers to work together and it encourages people to act in a collaborative fashion. That was the vision of St Andrews: a collective Government. <BR /> <BR />It is also important to note that, under the provisions, Ministers will not be able — Members know this — to go off on so-called solo runs, as happened in the past.”
“If Mr Wells wishes to take to his feet in the Chamber and consistently denigrate the professionalism and the standards of the Departmental Solicitor's Office, that is his right. I am merely pointing out that the DSO and the Attorney General exist as organs of this state to advise Members. <BR /> <BR />The provisions that the junior Minister outlined actually strengthen the concept of collective responsibility, because they provide clarity around the areas that are defined as significant, controversial or cross-cutting. That is important, because this is an issue that, as Members will be aware, has been argued out in the courts on numerous occasions.”
“Absolutely, and that is standard custom and practice in government. Even those who have served as Ministers will be able to attest to the fact that the legal advice that they are given is not publishable. I will accept criticism of the accelerated passage procedure from Miss Woods. I will accept it from Mr Carroll, from Mr Allister or from Ms Bailey, because they are the only four Members who have maintained a consistent position on the issue. They were opposed to accelerated passage from the very start, and I accept and acknowledge their right to be. <BR /> <BR />I give way to Mr Wells now.”
“Speaking of which, I will give way to Miss Woods.”
“You believe that if you want to. <BR /> <BR />The consistent position of those who have opposed accelerated passage of the Bill —.”
“No — we prefer the advice of someone else —”
“The Government act on legal advice given to them by, among others, the Attorney General and the Departmental Solicitor's Office. That is why they are there. That is one of the reasons why the office of the Attorney General exists and one of the reasons why the Departmental Solicitor's Office exists. In recent days, Members have questioned the advice that has been given by both those organs of the state. It is their right, in a democracy, to do that, but, if we question the validity of that advice, we are effectively saying that we should abolish those offices. What is the point of their existence, if we simply decide that we prefer the advice of someone else outside of —”
“I do not intend to detain the House for long, because the arguments around the Bill are well rehearsed and were discussed at length yesterday in the Chamber. <BR /> <BR />I think that everyone can recognise that the advances that were made at St Andrews represented an enormous improvement on how this part of the United Kingdom is governed. It was an important principle that the Government should function collectively and in a spirit of cooperation, and the changes that were made as a consequence of the efforts of the Democratic Unionist Party at St Andrews facilitated that positive change to how this part of our country is governed. This proposal is completely consistent with St Andrews, and it is important that that is noted. <BR /> <BR />We have had arguments thrashed out between differing interpretations.”
“but I do not think I will. <BR /> <BR />The Member asks about seeking legal advice. Can the Minister confirm that there is absolutely nothing to prevent the leader or members of the Ulster Unionist Party from making an appointment with the Departmental Solicitor's Office and asking for advice?”
“I am tempted to say, "Maybe the next one"”
“The Member appears to think that you simply submit an application for planning and it goes directly to the Minister. The reason that the Casement Park project has not advanced is that local residents, having been badly treated by the applicants, used the existing planning processes to prevent it advancing.”
“If the Member reflects on what I said, it was that because of certain media outlets and social media doubt had been sown in people's minds. That is a different matter altogether.”
“I would never impugn the Member's integrity, and I am sure that, when he was a Minister, he would never have read a prepared script from anyone. I am sure that that would never have happened. Does he accept that it is entirely because we have had a legal judgement that the measures are necessary? It arises out of a legal judgement.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Will he accept that, if a decision is deemed to be significant, controversial or cross-cutting, in law that decision cannot be validly made by a Minister? If a Minister were to announce such a decision, that decision would have no force, because it has to be brought to the Executive by virtue of the fact that it is deemed to be significant or cross-cutting.”
“The Member is touching on a point that I raised in my comments. Does he agree that it is, frankly, insulting to the other members of the Committee for the Executive Office, and to Members of the House, to suggest that because we were all too busy looking at COVID, or too busy with the furore over the funeral recently, we just ignored the Bill or let it slip? We are paid to ensure that it does not slip. It is insulting when a Member stands up and says that other Members, from other parties, were simply asleep and let that go through unnoticed?”
“The Bill is short, but it deals with a very specific area of the law. One thing that we know is that lawyers will always disagree with one another. However, the duty then falls on us to interrogate the matter, to be informed and to come to a reasonable conclusion. If others elected not to do so at the various junctures that were available to them, that is a matter for them. I will vote against the amendments, supporting a sensible way forward that fully respects and enhances the principle and intention of St Andrews.”
“The House voted to give the Bill accelerated passage; that is how accelerated passage works. <BR /> <BR />To be clear, all those types of matters that were deemed to be required to go to the Executive prior to the Buick case will continue to be required to do so. That means no change at all. Rather, it prevents the situation from changing to bring in many more issues. <BR /> <BR />It is also important to note that, even with this amendment, read in conjunction with the Buick case, it is still likely that not only will at least as many matters go to the Executive but additional matters will also be required to go when applying the test. These matters will need to be set out in the revised ministerial code. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, I am saddened by the confusion caused and by the commentary around the issue.”
“That will always be a judgement call, but we have heard clearly during the passage of the Bill that this amendment reflects, as best as possible, the approach consistently taken to this requirement.”
“We must still face that challenge in amending the ministerial code. However, the biggest challenge came from the language used in the original drafting. The terms were lifted from a negotiated political document. However, the word "cross-cutting" is not legislative language, which has given rise to the debate on this matter in the courts over the past 14 years since the St Andrews Agreement. What has happened, though, up to the point of Buick, is that the practical application of this test has been applied by the Executive and by Ministers. That balance aims to find a sensible solution to ensure that all important decisions come in front of the Executive Committee, without meaning that all departmental decisions must also be brought before the Executive.”
“Thanks very much. Therefore, the proposal to continue and just ignore the requirements to bring the matter to the Executive by custom and practice has no legal basis and would subject all such decisions to successful legal challenge. <BR /> <BR />Thirdly, it is recognised that there are matters that are de minimis or incidental on cross-cutting grounds that would not need to come to the Executive for consideration or agreement. <BR /> <BR />How do we find ourselves at this point today? There are a number of reasons. The response seeking clarity on what would be considered de minimis or incidental was not forthcoming, either in the ministerial response in the House of Commons or definitively in the ministerial code. That is, on the one hand, understandable. Any attempt to be overly prescriptive could well give rise to greater issues.”
“It must come to the Executive Committee for a decision. Therefore, the proposal to continue and just ignore the requirements —.”
“<BR /> <BR />I refer Mr Beattie to the original Hansard exchanges during the passage of the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006. It specifically referred to the exchanges, and they were pre-notified by the then Member of Parliament for East Belfast, Mr Peter Robinson. What do those pre-notified questions and answers, delivered in the House of Commons, tell us? Well, first they tell us that the term "interests" is not referenced nor, by the way, is it the Belfast Agreement or the St Andrews Agreement. Rather, it is clear that, at all times, the reference is to responsibilities of Departments, rather than interests. It is made absolutely clear that if a matter is cross-cutting, significant or controversial, that the Minister does not have the authority to make such a decision.”
“That would mean that the vast majority of departmental decisions, including in the Department of Health, would now need to come before the Executive. Any issues simply touching on a ministerial or departmental interest, even if they are just incidental, would now need to come before the Executive, rather than allowing a Minister to make the decision. Why bother appointing Ministers if we expect them to operate in that way? The only answer to this appears to be that Ministers individually, and the Executive collectively, should accept a very wide interpretation of the requirement, but just continue to ignore it, by custom and practice. What a bizarre legal principle that would be. One, in fact, that does not exist, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is nonsensical.”
“That definitively settles a matter that has been the subject of back and forth in the courts for many years. That supports and enhances the concept of collective Executive responsibility. <BR /> <BR />That brings me to the detail of the specific amendments that aim to remove the clarification in law as to what the term "cross-cutting" means. I find this, again, to be a rather bizarre move for a party that is part of the Executive. We heard previously that the clear and unambiguous advice from legal advisers to the Executive is that the implications arising from the Buick judgement would mean a fundamental change in relation to the range of issues required to come in front of the Executive Committee as cross-cutting issues.”
“It was reported in the newspaper that the amendments before the Assembly today would remove the clause that would mean that significant or controversial matters would only be required to come to the Executive if they satisfy a test of being more than incidentally cross-cutting. That is an error and a misunderstanding of the Bill. The clause referenced in the amendments is nothing to do with the requirement to bring cross-cutting or significant matters to the Executive. Indeed, that test is strong and stands alone as a requirement upon Ministers. <BR /> <BR />Not only is that requirement maintained, it is enhanced by clarifying, in the legislation, that if there is no Programme for Government in place, all matters that are significant or controversial must still be referred to the Executive Committee.”
“There is a certain irony that the amendments have been brought forward by a member of the Ulster Unionist Party, whose leader has stated numerous times that the party position is to reset to the factory settings of the Belfast Agreement. Does the Member realise that to do so would remove all the protections of St Andrews and would, in fact, facilitate precisely the type of solo runs, such as happened with the 11-plus? That is ironic and it demonstrates a remarkable lack of awareness by the Ulster Unionist Party. <BR /> <BR />The amendment today focuses on the cross-cutting test. All Ministers are required to bring matters that are significant, controversial or cross-cutting to the Executive Committee for consideration and agreement. That remains the case with this Bill.”
“Any suggestion that the Bill would diminish that is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Bill that we are considering. It is inaccurate of those who have attempted to suggest otherwise.”
“Our party is proud of what we achieved in the St Andrews Agreement and the outworking of that agreement in enforcing an enhanced sense of collective responsibility within the Executive. Reference was made by Mr Beattie to the previous solo runs by Ministers before St Andrews, particularly the decision of the then Education Minister, the late Mr Martin McGuinness, in relation to the transfer test, widely known as the 11-plus. Let me be very clear: under St Andrews and under this Bill, such a decision could not be made by a Minister on a solo run. It is simply not true to say that it could. We pushed hard to have this issue addressed at St Andrews, and we will fully maintain the protections that prevent Ministers from doing such things without the agreement of Executive colleagues.”
“To be fair to the Member, I am about 50 words into my prepared comments, and I have given way to him, I think, three times — certainly twice. If the Member bears with me and is a bit more patient, I may persuade him of the benefits of this Bill, although, having known him since I was about 14, I doubt that I will persuade him when he has his mind made up on an issue. It is a value that he has passed on to me, and obviously I respect him for that. <BR /> <BR />The St Andrews Agreement marked a very significant achievement in addressing many of the deficiencies in the Belfast Agreement, particularly around the issues of accountability and the operation of the Executive Committee.”
“I know Richard Bullick. He is a dear friend of mine and was a guest at my wedding. I am never going to be tempted into publicly criticising a friend, and Richard is my friend. The Member is in danger of turning what is a legal argument into something of a psychodrama, and I do not think that that is helpful. My understanding is that the Executive Office has received legal advice from the Departmental Solicitor's Office, the former Attorney General and another source. I cannot recall the third source of legal advice. The Member knows himself that, wherever you get one or two lawyers together, they can argue that a black crow is white until the day is done. There is conflicting legal advice. As I say, Richard is my friend, and the Member will not tempt me into saying anything that could be construed in any way as criticism of a friend.”
“It is a three-clause Bill, I think one of which is the title. So we had the Committee meeting. Then, I think, we had the vote in the House. Then an article appeared in a newspaper. Then, suddenly, this had grave constitutional implications and we should all be panicking about it. Something appears on Twitter, and suddenly the Assembly is debating amendments to a Bill. I think that people can join the dots.”
“I think that we should examine the timeline of events, because it is not particularly difficult to join the dots and see how we got to this point. To be fair to Ms Woods, Mr Allister and People Before Profit, they opposed accelerated passage and voted against it. That is fine. I have no problem with that. I think that that is principled and consistent. What happened was that we had the Committee consideration, where the First Minister and deputy First Minister came in and briefed us and answered questions on the content of the Bill.”
“As I said, there is no particular malice. I think that it was big of the Member who is moving these amendments to say that he got it wrong. I think that he went too far when he said that the Executive Office Committee got it wrong. Mr Beattie, from his perspective, might have missed the pass, but, as a member of that Committee, I am satisfied that I exercised my scrutiny function of this legislation to the best of my ability, and I think that other members of that Committee would say likewise, including the Chairman. <BR /> <BR />It is important that we all try to provide as much clarity as possible, particularly and regrettably, due to some confusion in the discussion of this Bill on social media and in newspapers over the past few days.”