Carál Ní Chuilín
North Belfast · Sinn Féin · Northern Ireland
“To continue the theme of undermining public confidence and public effectiveness, I ask you this, Minister: why do you and your DUP colleagues continue to block the 'good jobs' Bill, particularly the measures for parents whose babies require neonatal care and, indeed, other measures that will support workers who are struggling with the cos…”
“At the end of the day, guns were used to kill Catholics — Davy Payne; surface-to-air missiles in South Africa and Paris and then some. I will give the deputy First Minister another opportunity not to deflect but to condemn her party's involvement in Ulster Resistance and with the red berets that they wore.”
“I thank the Minister for that response. I have a close family relative who is in need of a SPiMS unit in an Irish-medium school but cannot access one in North Belfast at all. Apart from access in P4 and P5, they will have to go to an English-speaking school, even though Irish is their first language.”
“You mentioned some of the issues that are important: trade union representation, the banning of zero-hours contracts and employees being able to have their tips and service charges. Anyone who cannot get behind these proposals needs to be clear — concerns for some, and hiding behind the industry for others.”
“First Minister, I know that, recently, you were in Ardoyne for the sod cutting of the new £3·4 million purpose-built youth facility for Ardoyne Youth Enterprise. Further to your response to Brian Kingston, can you give us an update on that project and, indeed, any others?”
“I agree 100%, Linda. That is something that we all agree on. We met many people. The Bill was published and was based on the report of the truth recovery process.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,734 lines we hold for Carál Ní Chuilín, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 55.
“As a result of that, the Westminster Parliament is legislating on devolved matters without either the Assembly's knowledge or, indeed, its approval. The Committee is against that practice and calls on Ministers to ensure that it never happens again. <BR /> <BR />With regard to recommendation 5, the Committee wrote to all Statutory Committees to seek their views and experiences of dealing with LCMs. It was clear from the responses that we received that time pressures were a big issue. In response to the challenges around the reasonableness of timescales, as reflected in the responses from Statutory Committees, the Committee recommends:”
“Whatever the reason, it is the Committee's view that that practice is unacceptable.”
“That will remove any doubt on the part of Ministers that such an approach can and should be taken. <BR /> <BR />Recommendation 3 adds further detail to recommendation 2 by making it clear that, in the exceptional circumstances in which it is not possible to lay a memorandum within 10 working days, any memorandum should be laid as soon as possible thereafter and should set out the reasons why the normal deadline of 10 working days could not be met. <BR /> <BR />On recommendation 4, although the inquiry evidenced examples of Ministers failing to notify the Assembly of Bills that required legislative consent, the Committee was offered no explanation of why that was allowed to occur. We believe that one reason may be difficulties in obtaining the required Executive approval.”
“Despite existing arrangements, the Committee found, through detailed research, that Ministers routinely did not lay legislative consent memoranda in line with the normal requirements. Having highlighted the evidence for that in the inquiry, we feel that it is essential that Ministers in the Executive proactively lay the memorandum, whether or not they are seeking consent at that specific time. From a procedural perspective, it is the act of laying the memo that is important. <BR /> <BR />Recommendation 2 goes a wee bit further in making changes to Standing Orders. It recommends that Standing Order 42A should be amended to include an explicit provision for a Minister to lay a memorandum before the Assembly whether or not the Minister has taken a decision to ask the Assembly to give its consent.”
“Those enhancements include strengthening the arrangements to ensure that the Assembly is made aware in a timely manner of Bills in Westminster that require our legislative consent; improved communication from Ministers to the Assembly when normal timescales cannot be met; flexibility, where possible, to enable Committees to have additional time to carry out scrutiny and report to the Assembly; suggestions about how the Westminster Parliament takes into account the Assembly's position on legislative consent; and increased visibility of Bills that require LCMs and the work undertaken by the Assembly on them. <BR /> <BR />The inquiry makes seven specific recommendations. The first is that Executive Ministers must improve the timelines of when they lay memoranda under Standing Order 42A(4).”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee, therefore, concluded that, overall, there is scope to make amendments both to the practice of and the arrangements for managing LCMs in the Assembly that will hopefully enhance the Assembly's ability to carry out its scrutiny and bring more transparency to the process.”
“The Committee noted with concern that there have been instances of legislation dealing with devolved matters passing through Parliament without the relevant Minister being informed or without them informing the Assembly in line with the requirements of Standing Order 42A. There have been instances when Committees have had additional time to carry out their scrutiny but the current provisions of Standing Order 42A have not allowed them to do so. The Committee also noted with concern the practice of the Westminster Government of legislating on devolved matters when the Assembly has not been made aware of the Bill that deals with the devolved matter and/or has not given its consent.”
“As Members will know, the existing arrangements to manage legislative consent motions (LCMs) are set out in Standing Order 42A and were originally put in place well over 10 years ago. The Committee hopes that the recommendations made as a result of the inquiry will go some way towards enhancing the arrangements internally in the Assembly and for information-sharing and communication between the British Government, Parliament in Westminster and the devolved legislatures. <BR /> <BR />I will briefly summarise the main findings and then take each report recommendation in turn. The Committee's inquiry established a number of instances where the Assembly's procedures were not followed or where they were followed but issues arose nonetheless.”
“Making provision for an annual debate on the Executive legislative timetable in Standing Orders would be a helpful planning tool for the scheduling of plenary business, as well as for the wider scheduling of support by the Bill Office, and proposals to implement that should be brought forward without delay. <BR /> <BR />I recognise that we are now at the end of the mandate. These recommendations, if approved, will be set out in the Committee's legacy report for urgent action. I am pleased to move the motion and bring the report to the Assembly.”
“Recommendation 6 examined whether the sponsor of a PMB should have ex officio membership of the relevant scrutiny Committee. The Committee heard considerable evidence both for and against that, and, in the end, determined that there would no procedural changes in that regard. Recommendation 6 is:”
“The Committee did not wish to prohibit PMBs from being introduced via the privately drafted route. It agreed that Bills introduced in that way should not be supported by the unit. <BR /> <BR />The Committee's recommendation 5 is that all PMBs must meet the minimum procedural requirements for introduction that are set out in Standing Orders, and that any Member who wishes to introduce a privately drafted PMB should be required to:”
“by setting a final deadline by which PMB should be introduced to the Assembly. The Committee recommends that that deadline should be set out in Standing Orders as the end of June in the penultimate session of the mandate. <BR /> <BR />Recommendation 5 aims to address what the Committee found to be the lack of parity between the two ways in which a Member can currently bring forward a PMB: either through the PMB support unit or by presenting one that is privately drafted to the Speaker for approval to be introduced in the Assembly. Members will know that privately drafted Bills are not subject to the same criteria or stages of development before submission to the Speaker. They are required only to be within the legislative competence of the Assembly and should come with an accompanying explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM).”
“The Committee further agreed that the guidance should set out clear deadlines and timescales for achieving key milestones in the development process, as well as details on the opening and closing of the PMB submission window and management of deadlines through the PMB development process. <BR /> <BR />Recommendation 4 of the inquiry report aims:”
“The next issue identified was the scale and scope of PMBs. The Committee acknowledged that Departments have both the financial resources and the professional expertise to develop and consider large and complex Bills. With that in mind, the Committee agreed that, to ensure value for money and good legislation, PMBs should aim to be specific and narrow in focus in order to be able to effect the change that the PMB sponsor seeks to achieve. <BR /> <BR />Recommendation 2 is:”
“The Committee did not wish to make the process even more complicated, but it became clear that the current process could benefit from refinement and improvement, with a number of specific requirements being provided for in Standing Orders. The inquiry's findings identified the need for PMBs to have clarity on policy and scope and for consultations on them to be consistent. The findings also identified the need to ensure value for money when supporting Members with legislation. <BR /> <BR />I will start with recommendation 1, which is:”
“Once the inquiry started, however, evidence was forthcoming from MLAs who had direct experience of PMB processes. They provided oral and written evidence to the Committee. I thank all the Members who contributed. <BR /> <BR />The Committee even gathered evidence from the Ceann Comhairle. That is the first time that a Speaker has provided oral evidence to an inquiry. That is particularly relevant, given his direct role in issuing Members' guidance and in providing the resources to fund the expert drafting of Bills. <BR /> <BR />The evidence made it clear to the Committee that developing a competent and qualified PMB and introducing it in the Assembly is a complex and sometimes very lengthy process.”
“<BR /> <BR />When the Assembly resumed in 2020, the Speaker authorised the creation of a dedicated private Member's Bill unit specifically for the purpose of developing and supporting PMBs in the Assembly. The unit was provided with enhanced staffing resources for the remainder of the mandate and was focused on increasing support for Members and the number of PMBs that could be supported. <BR /> <BR />In 2020, the Speaker asked the Committee on Procedures to consider undertaking a review of PMBs so that any changes or improvements could be in place after the 2022 election. The Committee was able to start its inquiry only in April 2021, because, up until then, it had had to prioritise work on other aspects of Standing Orders as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.”
“This is a legislative Assembly, the primary aim of which is to consider, scrutinise and pass legislation. Each of us has the right to propose legislation. I do not need to remind the House how significant and powerful a private Member's Bill (PMB) can in achieving an objective, not just for an individual Member but for the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />As Members are aware, the process for a Member to bring forward a PMB is set out in guidance from the Speaker. Members can choose either to work through the policy development and drafting phases with the support of the Assembly Bill team prior to the PMB's introduction or to bring a privately drafted Bill straight to the Speaker. The processes have developed incrementally over time, in line with increasing demand for PMBs and the success of a number of high-profile Bills.”
“We highlight in our legacy report the immediate need for an urgent review of the provisions by the next Procedures Committee. We emphasise that the review should occur as soon as possible after the start of the new mandate. <BR /> <BR />On behalf of the Committee on Procedures, I am pleased to have moved the motion.”
“We did not want to take the decision unilaterally, so the Committee consulted the Business Committee on three options: to do nothing and let the temporary provisions cease to have effect at the end of the mandate; to agree to extend all or some of the temporary provisions to a date in the new mandate; or to consider whether all or some of the temporary provisions should be reviewed and considered for retention in Standing Orders on a permanent basis. <BR /> <BR />The Business Committee's view was that, owing to the changing circumstances of the pandemic, the temporary provisions should be allowed to roll on to the end of the mandate and beyond. However, it encouraged a review early in the new mandate. The Committee agreed with that approach.”
“There is still a high number of cases. It is still advisable to take precautions to reduce the potential spread of the virus. That is why the Committee proposes to extend the temporary provisions until the end of July 2022. <BR /> <BR />The Committee considered the risks associated with allowing the provisions to simply lapse at the end of the mandate without knowing what the situation might be in May of this year. The Committee decided against that approach.”
“This is the fourth time in two years that the Committee has tabled a motion to extend the temporary provisions. During that time, the Committee has kept the arrangements under review. We do not take lightly the decision to table a motion to extend them again. The last time that the House agreed to extend them was on 15 June 2021, when it was agreed that they should continue until the end of the mandate. Of course, that is only two weeks away. <BR /> <BR />Thankfully, the current pandemic situation is not as severe as it has been. The uptake of the vaccine and booster and people's adherence to public health advice have made an incredible impact during these unprecedented times. As milder weather approaches, I hope that we will be able to return to even more normality. The pandemic has not ended, however.”
“Among other things, the temporary provisions provide for Members to participate in plenary proceedings remotely, subject to the Speaker making the appropriate provision; for proxy voting in the Chamber; for alternative quorum arrangements in Committees; for delegated voting in Committees; and for Committees to take decisions outside meetings. <BR /> <BR />I do not think that any of us could have predicted that, two years on from the start of the temporary provisions, we would need to be here today to consider further extending them.”
“I am pleased to bring the motion to the House, which proposes to further extend Standing Order 110 until the end of July 2022. Standing Order 110 applies the relevant time frame for all of the temporary provisions in Standing Orders 110A to 116. <BR /> <BR />As the Assembly knows, Standing Orders 110 to 116 were originally agreed at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic back in March 2020. The purpose of those Standing Orders was to allow both plenary and Committee business to continue while adhering to public health advice and keeping Members and staff as safe as possible.”
“There could, however, be other exceptional circumstances such as bereavement or non-pandemic-related sickness. The Committee believes that the change is proportionate and reasonable and that it should be put in place before the end of the mandate. On behalf of the Committee on Procedures, I am pleased to move the motion.”
“New Standing Order 3A introduces a notice of political designation, which may be submitted by a Member only where exceptional circumstances prevent that Member from attending in person the first meeting of an Assembly. Notice must be given in writing and shall have effect only if received by the Speaker before the first meeting. <BR /> <BR />I wish to highlight that the proposed changes tabled by the Committee relate only to designation. A Member will still be required to take their seat in person, and, if they cannot do that at the first sitting, she or he may do so thereafter by arrangement with the Speaker, in accordance with existing arrangements. As I said at the start, the most likely reason for this to occur is due to the pandemic.”
“The relative size of the political designations at the end of the relevant day therefore has a bearing on the appointment of the First and deputy First Ministers. It determines the provision under which First Ministers are appointed and from which designation the deputy First Minister may be appointed. Under the current arrangements, there is a risk that a Member's inability to attend and designate in person at the first sitting may affect the relative size of the designations and would, therefore, also affect which party gets to nominate for First Ministers. The Committee wishes to remove that risk. To address it, the Committee proposes a new Standing Order 3A, which would allow a Member, in exceptional circumstances, to designate by notice if they are unable to attend the first sitting of the Assembly.”
“Essentially, the potential designations given on that day fix the size of the political designations for the entire five-year mandate, whatever changes in political party membership or in the size of designation may occur after that point. Unless a Member has indicated her or his political affiliation by the end of that day, she or he will not be taken into account in calculating the size of the political designation to which she or he belongs. <BR /> <BR />The political designation of Members is relevant for two purposes: first, for determining the political designation of a party; and, secondly, for determining the size of the political designations of nationalist, unionist or other.”
“<BR /> <BR />Members will know that the procedure for the first meeting of a new Assembly is set out in Standing Order 3. Amongst other things, Standing Order 3 provides for new Members to take their seats by giving the undertaking and signing the Roll of Membership. A Member may not participate in Assembly proceedings or have title to the privileges of office until she or he has taken her or his seat. Standing Order 3 provides for the separate proceedings of designating. A Member may do this after signing the Roll of Membership by entering in the Roll of Membership a designation of identity as nationalist, unionist or other. The Northern Ireland Act provides that the relevant time for calculating the size of the potential designations is the end of the day on which the Assembly first meets following an election.”
“Today's first motion from the Committee on Procedures is to introduce a new Standing Order 3A, with a consequential amendment to Standing Order 4. The Committee considered the potential for a newly elected Member to be prevented, by exceptional circumstances, from attending the first meeting of a new Assembly. That potential scenario was identified in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and Members having to self-isolate. However, although COVID is currently the most likely reason why a Member may not be able be attend Parliament Buildings, the Committee recognised that there may well be other legitimate, unforeseen situations that could prevent a Member from being able to attend in person the first sitting of the Assembly after an election.”
“It did so in a timely manner and worked to ensure that all the necessary changes to Standing Orders could be in place before the end of the current Assembly mandate. I finish by thanking the Committee staff and all other Assembly officials for their work and support in helping the Committee to bring the motion to the House today.”
“As I mentioned earlier, there were aspects of the recommendations of the independent review that the Committee was satisfied did not require changes to be made to Standing Orders. In the case of speaking rights, following consideration of legal advice, the Committee agreed that existing Standing Orders 17(4) and 17(5) were sufficient to give effect to section 7 of the 2016 Act. Over a number of meetings, the Committee considered carefully all options for amendments and how some of the proposals would work in practice. It also sought further papers, including a worked example of how the proposed changes to questions for oral answer would work should an Opposition be in place. <BR /> <BR />The Committee is extremely busy, as most Committees are, but it took its role of implementing the recommendations of the AERC report very seriously.”
“As I said earlier, when an official Opposition is operational, Standing Order 49A will provide procedural certainty that it should have the opportunity to be represented on all Statutory Committees. <BR /> <BR />The next proposed change is to Standing Order 55, which will provide for membership of the Opposition on the Business Committee. The proposed changes to Standing Order 56 provide for the Opposition to nominate the Chair and Deputy Chair, where appropriate, of the Public Accounts Committee. Finally, the motion to change Standing Order 81 is a technical consequential amendment. <BR /> <BR />I have tried to summarise the extent of the changes that are proposed in the motions to revise the Standing Orders.”
“In addition, the Committee was satisfied, as per the agreed recommendation, that the statement of entitlements speaking rights should continue and that the Opposition should continue to ask the first topical question for oral answer to other Ministers. For that reason, the Committee has not proposed amendments to provide that Chairpersons of the relevant Statutory Committee should ask the first topical question for oral answer. <BR /> <BR />The next proposed change is to Standing Order 45A, which addresses the formation of the Opposition, including qualification, and provides that the titles of the officeholders of the leadership of the Opposition should be "Leader of the Opposition" and "Deputy Leader of the Opposition".”
“<BR /> <BR />The next set of motions revise Standing Orders 20, 20A and 20B. In addition to providing for the Opposition to ask the first listed question for oral answer, amended Standing Order 20 provides that the Opposition should ask the second supplementary question for the first three listed questions for oral answer. That entitlement was originally set out in the statement of entitlements. Amended Standing Order 20A provides that the first and second questions asked of the First Minister and deputy First Minister during topical questions for oral answer should come from the leadership of the Opposition.”
“For clarity, the 2016 Act provided for changes to Standing Orders to include the formation of the Opposition, including qualification; timing of the formation of the Opposition; dissolution of the Opposition; leadership of the Opposition; topical questions for oral answer from the leadership of the Opposition; speaking rights in the Assembly; enhanced speaking rights for the Opposition; and the Opposition's right to chair the Public Accounts Committee. <BR /> <BR />I will go through the proposed changes and explain what they are and what exactly they will provide for. The first proposed changes are to Standing Orders 12 and 18A. They provide for Opposition Business in the Assembly and for the Opposition to ask the first question when a Minister makes a ministerial statement.”
“Recommendation 8 required more detailed consideration by the Committee. To remind Members, recommendation 8 was:”
“The Committee agreed that that amendment should be made, and Standing Order 20 addresses that. <BR /> <BR />Recommendation 10 was that an official Opposition, when it is operational, should have the opportunity to be represented on all Statutory Committees. The Committee noted that, as a consequence of the proportional representation formula that is applied to the allocation of seats on Statutory Committees, it was already likely that any official Opposition would have the opportunity to be represented on all Statutory Committees. However, it agreed to bring forward the proposed amendment to Standing Order 49(2) to provide procedural certainty.”
“Recommendation 5 was that all recommendations should be implemented in a timely manner, and that all Standing Orders should, ideally, be in place before the end of the current Assembly mandate. Recommendation 6 was that provisions for enhanced speaking rights should continue as set out in the statement of entitlements. That was an important consideration for the Committee. The Committee clearly understood the importance and urgency of the work on making changes to Standing Orders. <BR /> <BR />Recommendation 7 was that an additional facility to strengthen the questioning of the Executive should be provided to the official Opposition by amending Standing Order 20(7) to provide that the first question for oral answer to Ministers should come from the official Opposition.”
“We completed that work very recently, and the motions reflect the necessary changes that the Committee considers would be needed to give effect to those recommendations. <BR /> <BR />Members will hopefully recall that the independent review recommendations involved a number of procedural enhancements that required changes to Standing Orders. Although the AERC report recommendations refer to changes being needed to Standing Orders in a number of areas, the Committee agreed that changes were not actually needed to bring about all the recommendations. <BR /> <BR />Recommendations 7, 8 and 10 are where the work on Standing Orders was required. I will deal with the changes that relate to recommendations 7 and 10 first as they were more straightforward from the Committee's perspective.”
“The motions propose changes to a number of Standing Orders and are the culmination of a number of decisions and agreements from as far back as 2016. <BR /> <BR />Members may remember that, on 9 November last year, we debated and agreed the Assembly and Executive Review Committee's (AERC) report on the outcome of the independent review of the adequacy and effectiveness of the statement of entitlements for an official Opposition. That review and the AERC report arose directly from New Decade, New Approach. <BR /> <BR />In the debate, I spoke as Committee Chair and confirmed that, as far as we were concerned, there were no procedural barriers to making the relevant changes. In the week following that debate, the Committee on Procedures immediately started its consideration of how the changes could be implemented and what options we had.”
“In Standing Order 56, after paragraph (3), insert: <BR /> <BR />"(4) Where there is an opposition— <BR /> (a) The chairperson of the committee is to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition. <BR /> (b) The deputy chairperson of the committee is to be nominated by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (if any)."”
“I welcome that. The sector and everyone else will be aware of the timescale, and, certainly, some of the feedback is that we hope that that will be the case. Minister, will you also give us an update on what additional support your Department can provide to people — again, mainly women — who have been affected by stalking, which in itself is violence and harassment?”
“I thank the Minister for that quick update. I am pleased that she is now at a final stage. Hopefully, she will publish a report before her time in office is over. Can the Minister confirm that that will be the case?”
“Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra. Minister, in your response, you outlined that you are concerned about rising costs. You will not find a Member in the Assembly who is not. You said that your Department is providing a one-stop-shop in conjunction with the cross-departmental response led by the Department for Communities. The Department for Communities has provided £57 million to help people heat their homes. What money is your Department bringing forward to, for example, retrofit homes, which would reduce the bills people that face, particularly at this time?”
“Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a ráitis. Thank you, Minister, for your statement. You have quoted to several Members significant amounts of money from Invest NI that have gone to their constituencies. I can tell by the body language that many disagree, because they cannot see the outcome in their constituency. Given that significant public funds go to Invest NI to support companies, will the Minister confirm that that investment needs to ensure that jobs are contract-based, that the companies pay their employees a living wage and, in response to what Stewart Dickson said, that trade union representatives are involved, because vast sums of public money are going to that arm's-length body?”
“Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis an Aire as ucht a ráitis. I thank the Minister for his statement. It is clear, even from the statement, that there is deep frustration and agreement that the DUP's decision to collapse the Executive is disgraceful. Will the Minister confirm that the Budget will have a devastating impact on the £182 million that was set aside to rebuild cancer services?”
“<BR /> <BR />I will say this: it will come back, and it will probably do so through the courts. We had human rights experts, citizens, activists and others asking us for support and to reflect their lives, their personalities and their core beings in this place, and you let them down. You let them down big time. To be frank, this is where you are when it comes to rights: human rights do not apply. It is really regressive that this place is now a backwater when it comes to rights. I take heart and positivity from the Members in the Chamber I have worked with and the fact that we did our best. That report is there, and we will come back to it. As sure as the day is Monday, we will come back to it, and there will be a bill of rights.”
“I know that I am going to meet those people again, including those kids, but I am not embarrassed because Sinn Féin and others worked really hard. We were honest about the difficulties with the issue, but we did our best. <BR /> <BR />You talk about shadowy figures. In Dundela house, within a matter of weeks, you were in, you were out. I do not think that you can talk about shadowy figures in respect of anybody or anything, Paul, to be frank. <BR /> <BR />Let us be honest. When kids come up here with their school, we try to present it that we are all united, but — I will give you a heads-up — I am going to call it out and say, "I wanted a bill of rights, but these guys opposed it". I still do not know where you are, Mike. That is why I am keeping my powder dry.”
“Having a bill of rights would be one of the greatest expressions of citizenship. Christopher, respectfully, I will disagree with you, and you will disagree with me, because using America as a constitutional example was probably one of the worst that you could use. If people do not want to implement rights, they will wave a piece of paper. That is what they will do, and that is what you have done. You have waved a piece of paper and said, "Not on our watch". I want to say this: the days of "Catholics, nationalists, gays, lesbians and human rights experts need not apply" are gone. They are well gone. We all apply, and we all will apply. That is the message that the Assembly needs to send out. <BR /> <BR />I will finish on this.”