Basil McCrea
Lagan Valley · Ulster Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“I carried on that work on the all-party group on science and technology, and, when I am gone from this place, I hope that those who are still here will take up the challenge of science and technology, because that is where the jobs are and that is where the future is.”
“I rise for the last time to address the Assembly. I thank the people of Lagan Valley for the privilege of representing them over the past nine years. It seems like only yesterday that I first got here, awestruck by the names on the doors of people that I had seen only on television, and, yet, here we are.”
“— what matters is to have the courage to go on. I will go on. I will leave this place with my head high, with my colours flying, with my dignity intact and with all conviction about what is good for Northern Ireland. In conclusion, two roads diverged in the woods, and I took the road less travelled. That has made all the difference.”
“Despite the heckling from the man in front of me, I shall ask a question of the Minister in two parts. First, would the Minister care to tell us what was his personal favourite of the many events at the Northern Ireland Science Festival?”
“I am grateful to the Member for the explanation, and I have no doubt that her efforts to draft the amendment were well-intentioned. Maybe she can help me on this, if it has come up in the discussions.”
“Actually, when I read it, I understood it to be the other way round. However, I am happy that it is a more general stance and is not limited to single acts. <BR /> <BR />As regards amendment No 2, I approached the concept in a sympathetic manner, but I am not convinced that we can properly define an imbalance of power.”
The complete record
Every one of 747 lines we hold for Basil McCrea, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 15.
“I apologised for not being here. I thought that the debate might have run a little longer. In my discussions with Wallace High School, we listened to the debate in order to explain the implications of employment law for young people and our desire to get them jobs and employment in this part of the world. <BR /> <BR />The fundamental change from negative resolution to affirmative resolution brings petitions of concern into play. The Member raised the point, so he will be aware that our current set-up under the various agreements — the Good Friday Agreement, the St Andrews Agreement and the Fresh Start Agreement — is that the Executive have primacy. If you are a Minister, you are given executive control. I am sure that the Member and his party recognise that fact, and, for better or worse, it was a hard-fought-for political solution.”
“I give notice that I will oppose the changes to affirmative resolution. I do not think that that is the right way to go forward. We should have the debate here and now. If Mr Flanagan can marshal his arguments, he should be in a position to win his debate. This is the proper way to do it rather than pushing it to another date in another way when there could be unforeseen circumstances.”
“Members are rightly concerned about multiple claims and whether there will be some impediment. That tells me that many things in the Bill have not yet been resolved. We have said, "Do you know what? We will deal with that later under affirmative resolution and look at it in the new mandate", but I do not think that we will be able to do that.”
“I have just been talking to Wallace High School, explaining to them the difference and explaining petitions of concern. Affirmative resolution means that you will have to get a positive "yes" vote to make a change. Of course, any vote that is positive "yes" can be opposed by a valid petition of concern. The movement from a negative resolution to a positive resolution means that you will be able to stop any changes. We are getting more stasis in the Chamber, and we will not be able to make amendments that we want to make. <BR /> <BR />I apologised to Mr Flanagan, who realised that I was not able to be in the Chamber to hear his contribution, and I read the Hansard report of the previous debate on the matter.”
“One of the things that are quite strange in the debate is the point on affirmative resolution made by Mr Easton and by the Minister in his opening remarks. I was really struck by how we were making such a play to move from a negative resolution as suggested in, I think, amendment Nos 2 and 5. The Minister made a great play to Mr Flanagan and the supporters of their amendments, saying, "You do not need to bring this in. It is not necessary, because we will do it by order or by regulation, or it will come to the Assembly and you will be able to have it by affirmative resolution". Here is the interesting dilemma. Members have spoken and have said, "We are not really happy with the way that you are going to move on this issue. We do not think it is necessary, and then we are going to move to affirmative resolution". What is the difference?”
“Earlier today, I spoke to officials from Land and Property Services, and they informed me that perhaps two cases a week are coming before them, and almost all of those — 75% — end up in bankruptcy or payment. There seems to be no way to reach an accommodation that would help people to retain their businesses. I am quite sure that the Minister will join with me in wishing that we could find some way of reducing the cost to the public exchequer but also making sure that we have a viable property sector.”
“It is an honour to ask the first question to the new Minister.”
“I am grateful to you for letting me come in for a second time, and I am sympathetic to the case that you outline. I understand that you are saying that you have to get through what you can get through, because there is no Executive agreement. However, in light of what the Chair of the Committee just said, is it possible for us to see any draft amendments or proposals? I suppose that you will have given a paper to the Executive, but that will not yet have been visible to members of the Committee or, indeed, Members of the Assembly. Is there any way that we could have a framework that we could discuss? That would give us some time. Ultimately, we may not get it passed, but at least we would not be running out of time.”
“I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Just for clarity, it was not my opinion that I was expressing; it was a statement taken from 'Tribunals and Gender Recognition Statistics Quarterly' for January to March 2015, published by the Ministry of Justice. There is quite a comprehensive analysis of the impact of the fees at present. If the Minister wishes, I can send him a copy.”
“We need to find a way of addressing the issue, and I am a little disappointed that, having raised it in 2012, we have had to wait until the end of the mandate to deal with it. We will try to rush the legislation through, and we will cut out bits that we do not think that we will get through just so that we can get a Bill through. That is a bad way to do law. We should do it properly, and we should have given the Committee the time to get involved. I know that the Committee wanted to get involved, and I heard the Chair speak about that earlier. When the Bill gets its Consideration Stage, there will be further discussions, I am quite sure, but I urge Members to seize the nettle and not get stuck in some sort of political rhetoric.”
“We need to look at proper employment law. We need to understand that people need jobs and that, if you make a regulatory environment so tough that people will not employ staff, you do them no favours. If you make the regulatory system so complex that people would rather use zero-hours contracts or agency staff, that is self-defeating. You are putting the finger in one hole but letting all the water come out of all the other holes. <BR /> <BR />What I would like to see is an opportunity, if time permits, to get a proper evaluation of how we strike a balance of responsibilities between employers and employees. I have to say that it is not all on the employer's side any more than it is all on the employee's side.”
“Therefore, although I accept that the Minister has perhaps found a clever way of getting around the situation of introducing fees because it was politically expedient to do so, I think that there is a significant difference between requiring a deposit in certain circumstances and requiring a fee to go forward. All the evidence suggests that the best way in which to deal with industrial tribunal situations is to get the matter solved quickly, to dismiss vexatious claims and to make it clear to people that, if they go down the route of causing unnecessary hurt to people, and I include companies in this, they will be penalised. Nobody is trying to stop people taking forward a legitimate concern. <BR /> <BR />I spoke merely to say that I intend to engage in the debate as it goes through Committee Stage, and I will conclude on this point.”
“The point of all that is that nobody wants to see people who have been wronged being further wronged. Of course we want to provide protection for people in such situations, but you cannot have it all the one way. You have to have a balance in such issues. <BR /> <BR />I looked at this when the Minister was talking about looking for evidence. There was an improvement in the situation in Great Britain when it brought in fees for tribunals. There was a dramatic reduction in the number of cases being brought forward and an improvement in the speed in which cases were dealt with. It did not affect the outcome, as far as I can see, of any legitimate claims coming forward.”
“You may say that that is one case, but that particular case went all the way to the Court of Appeal. It was heard before Lord Chief Justice Morgan, Lord Justice Higgins and Lord Justice Girvan. They looked at the case ad nauseam and produced a very detailed judgement. When you read through it you come to the very last page, the very last sentence:”
“This shows the other side of a tribunal case, where people have vexatiously and for apparently improper motives tried to make claims. The Citizens Advice Bureau was stuck spending a huge amount of time in trying to prepare its response to the case. The person making the complaint provided over 400 pages of documents, which the Citizens Advice Bureau had to respond to. The action cost the Citizens Advice Bureau £31,091, which is money that could have been provided to helping people in distress and who had genuine need, and yet they could not. This was in addition to the insurance paid out for the real cost of the matter.”
“<BR /> <BR />The claimant asserted that he had made in excess of 35 protected disclosures and further alleged that he was the subject of 120 alleged detriments. The tribunal heard and accepted that the claimant and his then colleague had:”
“Yet, there are instances when vexatious and spurious claims are made to try to extract money from employers. <BR /> <BR />I will give an example of that in a particularly damning decision by the industrial tribunal dated 24 January 2013 in the case of Paul Keogh v Banbridge and District Citizens Advice Bureau. A Citizens Advice Bureau is normally an organisation that is on the side of people who are being discriminated against or who are underpaid or not getting their appropriate rights. This was somebody who took a claim against a Citizens Advice Bureau. The claim had an impact, and that is why we have to deal with this issue. If the Committee is not aware of this case, perhaps it will look at it when it considers the Bill at further stages.”
“Surely, what we want to find in this place is a way that does not deny people justice but gives them speedier justice that lets them get to an early resolution of their problem, and not just in the early resolution procedures. It should not take years to go through a process to find out that something was spurious. <BR /> <BR />I wish to talk about an issue just by way of example. This is not a live issue any longer; the matter has been dealt with by the tribunal and the Court of Appeal, so I am not using this stage of the Bill to advance any particular argument on behalf of constituents. I use it by way of example. All those people who argue that we must protect the worker against big, bad businesses seem to suppose that workers are always good and businesses are always bad.”
“I have some sympathy with some of the points that were brought up regarding zero-hours contracts. I can understand that there are certain situations where zero-hours contracts work, but I also think that there are situations where they are exploited and abused. In an earlier intervention, I talked about the issue of agency workers. In all these employment issues, you find that employers find ways round legislation. The use of agency workers as opposed to full-time employees deprives people of their employment rights and we are not tackling that. <BR /> <BR />Employers respond in such a way when they think that there are unnecessarily draconian rules to try to restrict them from doing business.”
“<BR /> <BR />The second issue that I am mindful of when I look through the Hansard report of the Minister's opening statement is the issue of insufficient political consensus. This actually comes up time and time again. Yesterday, at the nomination of the First Minister and the renomination of the deputy First Minister, it was all sweetness and light. It was, "We are going to work together, go forward and work these things out"; yet we actually get a very important piece of legislation and do not get any agreement. That lack of agreement is what stymies all political process in this place.”
“I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the Bill. As others have mentioned, this started in 2012, when I was actually on the Committee for Employment and Learning. At the time, I seem to recall the question being asked, "Why are we being told this now if we will not get to it for three years?". I think that we have missed an opportunity. Let me say quite clearly that I think that we are ducking the issue of the qualifying period. I think that we really ought to address whether it is one year or two years. We are at a disadvantage if we keep it where it is. I am not sitting on the fence: I am telling you that I think that we should be looking to align ourselves with the rest of the United Kingdom.”
“I do not want to be uncharitable just before lunch, but I am not sure whether the Member is supporting the introduction of amendments for zero-hours contracts or thinks that it is too difficult. As you rightly said, you brought it to Belfast City Council. I think that it is an issue that we maybe ought to be looking at, or do you think that we just do not have time?”
“Perhaps the Member might consider whether we should address that issue as well.”
“I am sorry for intervening a second time, but I would just like to know the Member's position on this. He talks about zero-hour contracts and about how that seems to be a way for employers to avoid responsibilities under employment legislation. I wonder what his feeling is about agency working, because that seems to be another way that employers avoid certain responsibilities. They do not actually employ the staff; rather, they contract an agency that employs the staff. I think the Member will be aware that Bombardier recently announced that, because of the economic downturn, it has had to make some adjustments to the workforce. That adjustment falls solely on the agency staff, not on the core workers. It seems to me that we have a two-tier environment working here.”
“I thank Mr Flanagan for giving way. When you are trying to tackle all these issues, have you thought about the implications for employment? The argument is that, if you make it more draconian to employ people, you actually employ fewer people. Surely there is a middle way whereby you can find a way not only to secure the rights of workers but to encourage people to invest in their workers for the proper reasons.”
“I am glad that the Minister referred to the 2005 protocol. Let me ask her a specific question about legislation. Is she aware that, according to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, if it attempts to take down flags of whatever nature from a lamp post, it is actually committing trespass? There is a legal impediment. How does her Department deal with the legal issue of trespass for the PSNI in following the 2005 protocol?”
“However, the single most destructive thing in our society, because it is with people for years and years, is being bullied at school, and there is no greater deterrent than people being exposed for that bullying. That is why I want to see in the legislation some form of amendment that states, "Where boards of governors, principals or a responsible authority think that it is necessary, the courts will move immediately to remove anonymity from trolls and people who take advantage of our young people".”
“At the risk of getting people interested, you will have to look up number three yourselves. <BR /> <BR />I conclude by saying that some people were surprised when I first took a stance on LGB and T issues in a speech that I made from the Bench on which Mr Kennedy sits just now. They said, "I didn't think he was gay. Why is he speaking up?" I can tell you that the issue that brought it to my attention, and Mr McCallister was the man who brought that to my attention, was bullying. Homophobic, racist or any other type of bullying, where bigger people think that they can take advantage of smaller people, is abhorrent in any democracy. Later on, perhaps like Mr Lunn, you get to understand that there are different issues and different things that you can look at that contribute to the wider problem.”
“Number two is this: "Is he married?" When you look at what people search for, that is what comes up. I will tell you the reason why —”
“I understand the constraints that he is under, and I am not in any way trying to deflect him from this worthwhile issue. However, the deficiencies and challenges are such that we will need to put a fair amount of effort into adding on the issues that were raised. I hope that we do not try to rush it through in the hope of getting it done before the end of the mandate. <BR /> <BR />When people look online for the name "Basil McCrea", what comes up is quite interesting. It is not altogether good. Do you know the most interesting thing that comes up? You put in a little search, and the first thing you see is, "Basil McCrea: is he gay?". That is number one.”
“You could put in the word "any", to cover any form of communication. Clause 1(d) refers to the "intention of causing ... harm". I do not think that you need the limitation of intention. How do you prove what the intention was? Do you say, "It was only a joke. I didn't intend to hurt"? The issue is the outcome. The problem with the modern world of cyberbullying is that it is 24/7. There is no safe haven. In my day, at least when you got on the bus or got home, you had a place of safety. You could sit there and recuperate or whatever. Nowadays, it is constant: 24 hours a day and seven days a week. It does not matter where you are because it is everywhere. Cyberbullying is the real issue that we have to tackle. <BR /> <BR />I am pleased that the Minister has brought forward these issues.”
“<BR /> <BR />On the definition, I heard Mr Craig say that he wanted us to be very careful that there was a catch-all about electronic communication. I have an even better catch-all, which Mr Craig might accept. The Bill says:”
“I know that the Minister will try to keep the Bill tight so that we can progress it, but I do not think that you will be able to pass the Bill without having a schedule on how to deal with these things. <BR /> <BR />Mr Allister made this point for me, so I will mention it just for reinforcement. Clause 3(3) cites the purposes or motivation of an attack, but I do not see the words "small boy", "weak" or "not strong enough". I remember people being bullied at school, and they were not bullied on the basis of their gender, sexual orientation, background or whatever: they were bullied because some people were bigger than them and they were the runts of the class. I do not know how you deal with that.”
“It happens in schools, and it happens to people of a younger age. We have to encourage the authorities and other responsible people to go to the police and ensure that they act on those matters. <BR /> <BR />I said that I wanted to suggest an amendment to give them that power, and that is all that I want to add to the Bill. However, I want to deal with issues that others have raised, which we will not be able to avoid, one of which is record-keeping. How long do you keep records? Who is allowed to look at records? What are the records to be used for, and how does that impinge on people's human rights? There is one further issue that is not dealt with in the Bill, but I can tell you that we will have to address it: how do we deal with false allegations or counter-allegations? Those issues are insidious and must be dealt with.”
“We have the opportunity now to do something definitive and give boards of governors or principals — I will come back to the point that Mr Allister raised in a moment — the powers to do it. <BR /> <BR />I hope that my final quotation will be an incentive to us all. Ms Lo raised the matter of harassment, and I am aware of the issues. The Lord Chief Justice said:”
“The Lord Chief Justice is saying, on the record and in public, that the law is deficient in this regard. He says that there needs to be a legislative response, and we should deal with the matter. <BR /> <BR />Some people might suggest dealing with this at some other stage. I am sure that the Minister, in attempting to get the Bill through the House before the end of the mandate, has tried to keep it fairly constrained and to set down what is achievable. However, the danger in not tackling the wider issues is that we risk losing another three to five years. The Lord Chief Justice said:”
“He is talking about a culture change that we need to bring forward. Here is what he said:”
“If they have properly considered matters and reported them to the police, they should have the right to uncover the names of those behind the bullying. <BR /> <BR />I will not read out all that the Lord Chief Justice said — it is on the record — but he went on to say something strange but very important about this crime:”
“<BR /> <BR />I realise that there are privacy issues and human rights issues, but what came forward at the conference was that you could see a pattern of abuse or a pattern of threats. You can see online comments, but you do not know who is making them. You could seek a court order to tell you who the person is, but, when you look at the comments again, they might, in the cold light of a day in court, seem innocuous. They are not innocuous to the person to whom they are addressed; they are insidious and damaging. I think that we might take the opportunity to do something by amendment. If we are to give these responsibilities to boards of governors, as the Minister suggests, we need to give them some opportunity to deal with cybercrime.”
“I have listened to people saying all sorts of things about trying to expand the legislation, not ignoring cybercrime and bringing it into our consideration, but nobody has mentioned the fact that the difference between cybercrime and old-fashioned bullying in the playground is that it is impossible to identify the perpetrators. People hide behind aliases, and, if you close down one name, another one springs up. I, therefore, give notice to the Minister of Education, in a gentle way, that it might be possible to include something specific in the Bill, and it is something that came out of that conference: if a board of governors, a school authority or other responsible individuals come together and request the identity of someone using an anonymous handle online, that request should be expedited.”
“He said that this was ongoing and would require education and an understanding of what privacy means.”
“He said a lot of important things, but one of the most important was his account of a conference — a Commonwealth conference, as it happens — that he had been at in Canada. He said that cyberbullying was a huge concern for young people and those who care for them. At that conference, Canada reported that 250,000 children were bullied in that way every year, some, I am afraid to say, with tragic and fatal results. The Lord Chief Justice said:”
“What was interesting about that conference was that the police and quite a few authorities were there to talk about the Dark Web, the millions being taken from our businesses and all the things that will happen to our society as a result of cybercrime. What was really interesting, however, was that the majority of those listening were teachers or pupils, and they were saying, "That is all very well; we are not interested in that. What we are interested in is bullying — online cyberbullying.". There was an interesting discussion about what we were really there to talk about. <BR /> <BR />None other than the Lord Chief Justice, Sir Declan Morgan, was there, and he does not speak lightly on these matters. He actually gave a prepared statement.”
“I listened to the start of the debate and heard the Minister outline his objectives, which were, as I understand it, to define bullying, to give duties to a board of governors, and to make sure that records are maintained. I then listened to Mr Peter Weir talk about how pleased he was that, at this time of night, maybe some people would be listening to what we had to say, because time does go on, and you wonder whether anybody is listening. The point that I think he made was that, although there may not be huge numbers in the Chamber now, a lot of people will be looking in from outside. <BR /> <BR />I want to bring it to the attention of the House that I recently attended a conference organised by Mr Weir's colleague the Chair of the Justice Committee, where they talked, at some length, about cybercrime.”
“Minister, I understand that FTC is, in effect, a loan. What procedures are in place for the repayment of a loan, who is it repaid to and how is that accounted for in the Budget and accounts?”
“Will the Minister outline why there would be any difference between sports facilities getting rate relief and arts facilities?”
“Thank you. I do not wish to be inaccurate. I thought that I was to speak after Mr Allister and was therefore next on the list. <BR /> <BR />It was an important debate, which, as chair of the all-party group, I have had a lot of input into. I really would have liked to have had the opportunity to make a proper contribution. I am grateful that many Members afforded me the courtesy of letting me intervene, but, given the importance of the debate, a few minutes extra from the Business Committee might have been appropriate. I ask you to bear that in mind, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am not making any complaint. I am just drawing that to your attention.”
“Sorry, my misunderstanding, Mr Deputy Speaker.”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to draw to your attention that, once again, I was the only Member who had his name down to speak who was not —”
“Thank you; I will be brief. I ask the Member in his summation to address the two counterarguments in the debate. The first was from Paul Frew, who said that there is climate change but that Northern Ireland is too small to do anything about it and that the issue is for China and India. The second argument — climate change probably happens but is cyclical, and we cannot do anything about it — was put forward by Mr Allister in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence that it is man-made.”