Paul Givan
Lagan Valley · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“The EA's enhanced support model has been out for consultation. The Member's party is the largest political grouping on the Education Authority, so his party supported the model's being consulted on.”
“Protections around strike action and action short of strike are firmly established in statute for all workers, including teachers. If the Member is referring to the Education Inspections Bill, let me be clear: nothing in that legislation removes or undermines that right.”
“The issue was covered at length at the Education Committee. The position is still not where it ought to be. When I came into office, the position that I inherited was much worse than it is today.”
“It is an area that I have had to navigate, as have many previous Education Ministers. Industrial relations is an area that needs ongoing work. I have outlined how we can address it, but I come back to saying that, when workload was undefined, trade unions struggled to specify the challenge.”
“That is not a fair characterisation. In fact, I was with Justin McCamphill, the leader of NASUWT, at the launch of the curriculum reform, at which he commended me for it and said that he thought that it was good. I have sat in many a meeting with trade union representatives during which they have said, "This is a good initiative.”
“That is exactly why there is a 16-week consultation period, rather than the normal 12 weeks or the minimum eight weeks; to allow the public and teaching profession to very much engage in that curriculum, which I commend to all Members.”
The complete record
Every one of 6,258 lines we hold for Paul Givan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 80 of 126.
“Gordon Dunne was so much more than just a colleague; he was very much a personal friend. He was a gentle, godly man, who epitomised all that it is to be a Christian. He was an encourager, somebody who spoke to you in the corridor, picked up the phone and sent text messages. Even in very recent days, when Gordon could barely do that, he was doing that with me. <BR /> <BR />A number of weeks ago, I was able to visit the home. We were in a rush that day; I went with my good friend Mr Buckley. I knew when I talked to Gordon in the kitchen that it was likely to be the last time that I would speak to him. We set aside the time, and we were not in a rush any more. I am so glad that we had that opportunity to have tea and conversations about life, politics and his family.”
“We have a rich tapestry that makes us who we are, what we are and the society that we belong to. <BR /> <BR />As we emerge from COVID-19, there is much work to do in rebuilding our public services and supporting our economic recovery. I know that the challenge is great, and the responsibility will be heavy. I have never shied away from taking on responsibility when asked to do so. Let us get to work.”
“Mistakes, I am sure, I will make — I am not infallible — but I share the same drive and determination to serve the people of Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />There is much goodwill from the public for this place to work and for our politics to work for everybody. We must all recognise that we have much more in common than that which separates us. Northern Ireland is a special place. It is special because of its people. We have different identities. We need to respect those identities. That difference should not be seen as a threat; it should be seen as a strength.”
“My grandfather, with his two brothers, founded the party with him. They were south Tyrone people. They were farmers, and they ploughed a difficult field for the DUP back then. It was not the establishment, and many looked down upon them, but it is because of that generation that my generation is able to serve the party in political office. <BR /> <BR />I pay my thanks to Dr Paisley and those who went before: to Peter Robinson for his unrivalled strategic ability and for how he led the Democratic Unionist Party; and to Arlene Foster for her energy and commitment to make devolution work, recognising that difficult choices needed to be made but devoted to making this place work. They all had their own way of leading, and I will have mine.”
“He wants people to succeed, and he loves this country. I pay tribute to him and look forward to his leadership in the time ahead. <BR /> <BR />Little did I know at 23, when I became the then youngest councillor to be elected to Lisburn City Council, that today I would end up as the First Minister of Northern Ireland. It was at the same age that I got married, and my wife said to me, "Only a councillor. You will never be allowed to be anything else. You can only be a councillor, and I want you to get a real job". Here I am now, taking on this job. I thank Emma and my family for their support throughout my career. I know that the time ahead will be more than challenging. <BR /> <BR />I pay tribute to those whom I follow. First, Dr Paisley. He founded the DUP. Without him, there never would have been a Democratic Unionist Party.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. To keep the record right, I believe that I should have read the Pledge of Office into the record. Maybe I have led the deputy First Minister astray already in that she followed me in that respect. For the record, I confirm that I am willing to take up the office of First Minister, and I affirm the terms of the Pledge of Office as set out in schedule 4 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998. I trust that that satisfies the record. <BR /> <BR />I thank Edwin, first and foremost, for his confidence in me. It was 25 years ago that our paths crossed; I was 16 at the time. It was at the point of the Belfast Agreement, and I got politically active at that stage. Edwin is not just a colleague. Edwin is a close personal friend of mine. Edwin is a leader who has a big heart for the people around him. He wants them to do well.”
“We have the Health and Social Care Bill, which is part of that Bengoa transformation, and that legislation has to be rolled out and changed. Protecting people from stalking behaviour needs to be funded from the financial allocations that flow from the Budget. I look at the legislation on domestic abuse and see that that needs funding over the next 12 months, and other legislation has to flow from that to provide the protections to do it. Let us make this place work. Let us make politics work. That is what the people who elect us expect us to do.”
“Yes, we will have different community backgrounds and will seek to reflect the different identities that we come from, but the Assembly is the best place to do this, not Westminster in England and not in some kind of dual governance between east and west. We need to find the common ground to do that. <BR /> <BR />When devolution fell, our waiting lists stood at around 100,000: now they are at almost 350,000. We were on a trajectory of having those waiting lists go down and down before devolution fell, but, since then, they have been on an upward trajectory, and that has accelerated at great pace during the last 12 months as a result of COVID. I look at the legislative programme that the Assembly is taking forward.”
“<BR /> <BR />We have that responsibility to work together. It is a five-party coalition. I understand that Members will come in from their parties and have a rattle at the wider Executive and the parties in it. That is part and parcel of politics. It is certainly not the "fluffy duck politics" that Mr McCrossan referred to. That is par for the course. We are all in it together because we all represent our people, and it is important that we seek to get the right processes and decisions for them. The Executive need to take big decisions, but I am of the clear belief that we are by far the best placed to take those decisions through our devolved arrangements. Yes, we will have differences.”
“I thank the Member for that contribution. As always, in her own way, she makes important contributions not just in the Chamber but as she has done over the past 12 months in the Justice Committee. She has demonstrated her ability in that role. <BR /> <BR />The Minister gets to the point that we all have to face: difficult decisions need to be taken. The Executive are under considerable pressure. There is limited time left in the mandate, but decisions have to be taken not just on the basis of the next nine months but on the basis of what is good for the next two years, five years and 10 years. We will not see transformation across our public sector before the next election in nine months' time. Decisions need to be based on not just what is good now but what is good in the medium and long term.”
“There are systemic issues that need to be addressed by the Department of Health, but we also need to utilise the private independent sector to address other issues. I support the call for that health summit. It is a priority that, I feel, the Executive need to take forward. <BR /> <BR />I will give way to Ms Dillon.”
“I support the calls for a health summit. I know that the party leaders' forum talked about that and that the deputy First Minister has said that we need to have a health summit. We need to apply our collective efforts to address that. There will be many solutions. Mr Carroll spoke about some concerns about the private independent sector. That has to be part of the solution, but so does more recruitment into the National Health Service. We are losing an increasing number of staff. There is an inability to retain them and a dependency now on the bank nursing system, but extra costs go with that. Why are people leaving the health service? Why is it more attractive to be in that bank system? Rather than run a GP practice, it is more attractive to be a locum because of the flexibility that that provides.”
“While people say that more money needs to go into health, not many Ministers are saying, "I will volunteer x amount of tens of millions and pass it on to Health". I do not see that as a viable solution for addressing the Department of Health's financial difficulties.”
“I will give way shortly, Linda. <BR /> <BR />Just calling for additional funding for the Department of Health, however, will not solve the problem. We can all point to the financial pressures on every single Department. Those Ministers will defend the allocations that they have been given and will want more.”
“That is the top priority that needs to be addressed.”
“<BR /> <BR />I will make some comments in my capacity as an individual MLA. So far, Members have spoken about the financial pressures right across the public sector. Colleagues have spoken of the pressures on education, infrastructure and the economy and the support that needs to be provided to businesses. Therefore, the pressure on the Finance Minister is not exclusive to him; it is on us all. We all have that collective responsibility to identify the issues that people face. We need to find solutions, as Mr Muir mentioned earlier, rather than just identifying all the problems that exist, and there are many. Mr McCrossan rightly highlighted the pressures on the health service, the waiting lists and the hurt that is being caused to the people who are on them. I agree with him. People are dying. It is shameful.”
“For example, the PSNI needs to be confident that recurring costs will be met in future years when it recruits new officers in line with the NDNA commitment and has regularly called for a multi-year Budget to be put in place. <BR /> <BR />The Committee recognises the challenging Budget position for the Department of Justice, which is made even more difficult by the uncertainty that has been brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. Departmental officials have advised that difficult decisions will have to be made, given the pressures that the Department faces. The Committee expects there to be ongoing engagement and to be kept fully informed to help to ensure that the Department's budget is maximised and key priority areas are funded to deliver effective outcomes across the justice sector.”
“are to be achieved. <BR /> <BR />The Committee accepts that, while it is not ideal, the main source of funding for a number of programmes and projects across the justice sector will be allocated in-year because of the nature or source of that funding. In addition, the Committee recognises that flexibility in financial management is required to manage easements and pressures that arise in-year. However, the Committee does not believe that it is appropriate to plan an annual budget on the basis that inescapable pressures can be met in-year, as there is a clear risk to programmes and organisations should that funding not be forthcoming, and it is very difficult to plan and operate on that basis. The Committee would also welcome a move to a multi-year Budget, which would assist in planning ahead for all justice sector organisations.”
“The Committee expects to see appropriate funding being committed to initiatives and programmes, such as enhanced combination orders, problem-solving justice and restorative justice initiatives. Many of those have the potential to provide savings in the longer term and must be financed if better outcomes, including the draft Programme for Government outcomes framework statement:”
“It is the Committee's view that legislation that is passed by the Assembly requires full implementation and that anything less is unacceptable. The Committee will continue to pursue this issue to ensure that adequate funding is identified and committed so that the legislation can be fully and properly implemented. <BR /> <BR />Finally, I want to mention some issues in areas that the Committee will continue to focus on as part of its scrutiny of the Budget cycle and its wider scrutiny of the Department, its agencies and NDPBs. On behalf of the Committee, I reiterate the importance of not seeking to cut costs for short-term gain that may have negative consequences in the longer term and which would not just be limited to the justice system but could impact on other parts of the public sector, including the health service, and wider society.”
“While the commitment to funding the scheme is welcome, there are still questions about the source of funding. The Committee will continue to monitor that issue. <BR /> <BR />The Committee has a heavy legislative programme and is concerned about the lack of information that is available on the financial implications of the Bills that it is considering and the availability of funding to ensure that necessary and adequate resources are available to ensure that the legislation is properly implemented. The absence of such detail has been noted by the Finance Minister and his former permanent secretary in written submissions on the Bills, with the permanent secretary advising that any financial effects should be quantified in the explanatory and financial memorandum so that the full effects of any proposed legislation are understood.”
“The Department subsequently received allocations in the most recent COVID-19 exercise, leaving a pressure of £6 million for the Legal Services Agency. The Department advised that it would submit a bid to cover that shortfall as part of the June monitoring round. The Committee's scrutiny of COVID-19 expenditure will continue. <BR /> <BR />Applications to the Troubles permanent disablement payment scheme are set to open by the end of the month. Although the Department of Justice is responsible for delivery of the scheme, responsibility for funding the payments rests with the Executive Office and will not come from the Department of Justice's budget. The Committee is keen that there be no further undue delays in getting payments to victims.”
“The Committee understands that discussions are ongoing with HM Treasury to secure the balance, and the Department advised that a bid for that funding will be included in its June monitoring submission. <BR /> <BR />In respect of COVID-19 funding, the Department received an allocation of £7·7 million in the final Budget against requirements of £25·6 million. That left a resource pressure of just under £18 million. Following reconsideration of requirements by the Department, that pressure has been reduced to £11·6 million, with £5·1 million of that reduction being transferred to a cross-justice recovery bid. That bid was developed at the request of the Criminal Justice Board in order to increase capacity in the system in a coordinated way to support and speed up recovery with the associated benefits for victims and witnesses.”
“The additional £12·3 million for policing staff to which I referred earlier is to be welcomed as it enables the PSNI to retain its current numbers and allows for the recruitment of 100 new officers. There will, obviously, be recurring costs beyond this year, which the Department believes should then be included in future baselines from 2022-23. The Finance Minister has advised that future Budgets will depend on funding being available, and it will be for the Executive to agree allocations at that time. Therefore, it remains a concern to the Committee that we could still be some way off from meeting the NDNA target. As I mentioned, the PSNI is still facing a shortfall on funding requirements for the European Union exit.”
“It is important that it is properly funded and that any reduction in service to deliver short-term savings does not lead to costs in the longer term. The Committee is also aware that there is a disparity in pay scales between social workers in the Probation Board and those in the health trusts, which needs to be resolved to assist in recruitment and retention of such staff by the board. <BR /> <BR />A key concern for the Committee in its consideration of the draft budget was the information from the Policing Board and the PSNI that a reduction of 300 officers may be required this year, bringing the number of officers down to 6,700. It appeared, therefore, that we were moving away from New Decade, New Approach commitments to increase the number of police officers to 7,500.”
“It will receive £1·6 million for the Aspire and Engage programmes out of the tackling paramilitarism programme. It has also been allocated £400,000 to meet its COVID requirements in full. Despite those assurances, it is still not clear to the Committee whether all the Probation Board's requirements have been met. It had previously advised the Committee that, although it was aware of that additional funding, inescapable pressures remained. Those pressures largely related to pay, which, if not funded, will exacerbate issues with the recruitment and retention of staff. That may impact on the ability to resource those projects. <BR />The Probation Board does important work that can save costs in other parts of the system — for example, by preventing reoffending and, thus, court appearances or prison sentences.”
“<BR /> <BR />Options that may be considered to help the Prison Service to live within its budget include the relocation of working out units back to prisons, the reduction of learning and skills provision or the closing down of policy units. The Committee's view is that those approaches will clearly have an impact on rehabilitation, which will be negative not only for prisoners but for their families and wider society, and for prison staff. It is, therefore, of concern that the Prison Service could be put in that position. <BR /> <BR />Based on the Probation Board's draft allocation, there had been some doubt about whether the board would be able to fulfil its statutory duties. Officials sought to assure the Committee that some of the pressures for the Probation Board had been met.”
“As I outlined in the Budget debate a few weeks ago, much of the discussion with officials on 29 April focused on the Prison Service, given the suggestion in the written papers that its staffing complement may need to be reduced. Officials advised that it is not expected that jobs will be lost but, rather, that new staff will not be recruited. That may not have an immediate impact, as the Prison Service is very close to being at full complement, but, over time, it certainly would have an impact. Although it is hoped that the shortfall in the Prison Service budget can be managed through easements, plans must be in place should those easements not materialise.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee sought information from the Department on the public services or programmes across the sector that will need to be reduced or will not be delivered in order for the Department to live within its budget. The Department advised that the funding requirements far outweigh its allocation. The extent to which the priorities can be delivered and the impact on front-line services will depend on how the budget is prioritised and whether any additional funding is forthcoming in-year. The impact of any shortfall will be seen across the justice sector, including in policing, prisons, courts and legal aid, and will be felt across the community. <BR /> <BR />I take this opportunity to reiterate the Committee's main concerns arising from the Budget settlement for the Department of Justice.”
“The Department will also receive an allocation of £12·3 million for police staffing in-year, which, for technical reasons, could not be included in the final budget outcome. <BR /> <BR />The capital allocation for the Department was £96·4 million, which is an increase of £8·3 million from the previous year. The Department believes that that is sufficient to meet existing commitments and to progress priority projects. <BR /> <BR />The Committee heard that a critical examination had been undertaken on the £55·7 million of pressures identified in November. Those had reduced to £20·4 million, of which £5·9 million related to the Police Service. The Police Service still has pressures of nearly £6 million for EU exit and £1·6 million for transformation, bringing the overall pressures facing the Department to £27·7 million.”
“<BR /> <BR />During that briefing, the Committee was advised that £8 million for tackling paramilitary activity, which had been included in the Department’s draft allocation, had been removed from the baseline to be held centrally by the Department of Finance. The Department had received £7·7 million of COVID funding for allocation to the Police Service, the Prison Service, the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service and core and smaller bodies, and there had been small technical transfers between Departments of just over £0·5 million. As a result, the Department’s final budget allocation saw a small increase of £0·3 million on the draft allocation that had been announced in January.”
“Thank you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. It is always a pleasure to follow the Member for West Tyrone, who speaks in a very forthright manner. My family is native to County Tyrone as well; I like to do that on occasions, and I am sure that I will do so in due course. I will come to some of those points later, when I make some wider points on the Budget. I will first discharge my responsibility as Chair of the Committee for Justice. <BR /> <BR />The Committee for Justice considered a written briefing on the Department of Justice's final 2021-22 budget allocations at its meeting on 22 April. It requested further information from the Department on a range of issues. The Department’s response was provided in advance of an oral evidence session with departmental officials on 29 April, and it informed the discussions on the final 2021-22 budget.”
“The Department also indicated that the codes of practice would come into operation on the same date as the commencement of the outstanding provisions of the Criminal Finances Act. <BR /> <BR />The Committee, at its meeting on 22 April, agreed that it was content with the proposals for the statutory rules to bring the four codes of practice into operation. The draft statutory rules were subsequently considered at our meeting on 3 June. The Committee noted that the Examiner of Statutory Rules had no issues to raise with regard to technical aspects of the four rules, and it agreed to recommend that they be approved by the Assembly. Therefore, on behalf of the Committee, I support all four motions that are before the House.”
“The Committee agreed that it was content for the consultation to proceed and that it would consider the matter further upon the results being available. The consultation was subsequently launched on 1 December, and the summary of the consultation was considered at our meeting on 11 March. Although no amendments to the codes were deemed necessary following the Department's consultation, one code was updated as a result of changes made to an equivalent Home Office code in response to that consultation. The Department advised that the changes provided clarity where it was believed to be beneficial but were not considered to be material to the operation of the codes. The Committee noted the Department's intention to bring the draft affirmative statutory rules and finalised codes of practice for consideration after the Easter recess.”
“Subsequently, departmental officials attended the Committee's meeting on 28 May to provide an overview of the provisions relating to Northern Ireland that it was proposed should be commenced. The Committee was advised that a public consultation would be undertaken on nine codes of practice. The Department of Justice and Home Office would each consult on four codes of practice, while the Attorney General and Advocate General for Northern Ireland would consult on one. Written information provided as follow-up to the evidence session gave further detailed information on the consultation. <BR /> <BR />On15 November, the Department wrote to the Committee advising of its intention to launch a nine-week consultation on its four codes of practice on 23 November.”
“Members will be aware that that Act is a UK-wide Act that includes a mix of reserved and devolved provisions to provide law enforcement agencies and partners with new capabilities and powers to recover the proceeds of crime and to tackle money laundering, corruption and terrorist finance. Though fully commenced in England, Wales and Scotland, the devolved provisions for Northern Ireland have not been commenced, as consent was not secured before the Assembly was dissolved in January 2017. The Minister of Justice wrote to the Committee on 22 May last year, indicating her intention to notify the Home Secretary of her agreement to commence the provisions of the Criminal Finance Act 2017 in Northern Ireland.”
“I am pleased to speak in my role as Chair of the Justice Committee on these issues, albeit briefly, as the Minister has already outlined the purpose of the four statutory rules in detail. The rules will bring one new and three revised codes of practice issued under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 into operation. The codes apply principally to financial investigators designated with powers under the law in the PSNI, the Department for Communities fraud investigation service and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. <BR /> <BR />Equivalent codes that apply to reserved bodies operating in Northern Ireland are issued by the Home Office, the Attorney General and the Advocate General for Northern Ireland. The codes have been updated or drafted to reflect changes to POCA arising from the Criminal Finances Act 2017.”
“<BR /> <BR />The statutory rule was subsequently considered at our meeting on 27 May, when the Committee noted that the Examiner of Statutory Rules had no comment to make by way of technical scrutiny and agreed to recommend that the statutory rule be approved by the Assembly. On behalf of the Committee for Justice, I support the statutory rule.”
“Having considered the information provided, the Committee agreed that it was content with the proposal for the statutory rule. The Committee also agreed to request clarification on the offences that would be retained on the system permanently, and the Department provided that information on 20 October. The Department laid the rule on 6 May, and, at our meeting on 13 May, the Committee noted correspondence from the Department advising that the delay in the rule being laid, following the Committee's consideration of the proposal in October, was due to drafting issues, which had been resolved.”
“The Committee subsequently considered the proposal to make the rule at its meeting on 1 October 2020, along with receiving an update on the operation of the administrative changes made to the scheme in March. The Department advised that the impact of the administrative changes had been significant, with around 55% to 57% of applications having information filtered, compared with 27% to 30% of applications before the changes were made. Many of those related to multiple motoring offences that, until then, had to be disclosed on the basis that more than one offence was adjudicated at court. The Department advised that there was no evidence that the increased rate of filtering caused any safeguarding concerns and no adverse feedback had been received from employers.”
“I will speak briefly, as the Minister has outlined in detail the purpose of the rule. It will remove the requirement for Access NI to automatically disclose all convictions in cases where an applicant for a standard or enhanced check has more than a single conviction on their criminal record. That brings the Access NI filtering scheme into line with the judgement that was made by the Supreme Court in January 2019. <BR /> <BR />The Minister first wrote to the Committee to advise of changes to the scheme in March 2020. Given that over a year had elapsed since the Supreme Court decision, the Minister advised that, to prevent any further challenges, the changes should initially be made on an administrative basis and that the necessary legislative changes would be made as quickly as possible thereafter.”
“I thank the Minister for bringing the statement to the House. Minister Humphreys is someone I have known for a long time and hold in the very highest regard. I welcome the very constructive relationship that the Minister of Justice has with her counterpart. <BR /> <BR />A wide range of areas was covered in the statement. I will focus on the domestic abuse element. Will the Minister outline whether opportunities for joint working on domestic abuse and sexual offending have been identified? Was stalking behaviour brought up in any of the discussions? Are information and best practice being shared so that both jurisdictions are assisted in tackling those issues?”
“I thank the Minister for that response. I know that the Children's Commissioner shares the view that it is time to remove the requirement. Can we look to the Executive meeting on Thursday for approval to be given for that requirement to end?”
“At our meeting on 13 May, the Committee agreed to inform the Committee for the Executive Office that we were indeed content with the transfer of the power to make those changes to the procedural regulations that govern the practice of the special educational needs and disability tribunal from the Department of Education to the Department of Justice. Therefore, on behalf of the Committee for Justice, I support the motion.”
“The Committee agreed that it was content. We wrote to the Department of Justice, the Committee for Education and the Committee for the Executive Office to give support for the proposal. <BR /> <BR />Recently, the Committee received correspondence from the Committee for the Executive Office advising that the Departments (Transfer of Functions) Order giving effect to the transfer of those functions was, indeed, laid by the Executive Office on 30 April, and asking whether our Committee was content, given its impact on the work of DOJ.”
“It was therefore proposed that the transfer of the necessary functions from DE to DOJ should be included in a forthcoming transfer of functions order that would be taken forward by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister.”
“The transfer was incomplete, however, owing to an oversight by the Department of Justice, and a power to make changes to the procedural regulations that govern the practice of the SENDIST remained with the Department of Education. As a result, both DE and DOJ are required to make regulations to change the procedures, which the Department advised is complex and also inconvenient. The Department indicated that a resolution was required, as changes to the regulations will need to be made as a result of the implementation of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2016 and the special educational needs framework.”
“Junior Minister Kearney has laid out the aspects of the statutory rule in great detail. I will address only the one that relates to the justice element that the Committee considered. <BR /> <BR />The Department of Justice wrote to the Committee last June to seek its agreement for the transfer of a statutory function relating to the procedures for the special educational needs and disabilities tribunal from the Department of Education to the Department of Justice. The Department advised that, in 2010, the Executive had agreed to transfer responsibility for a number of departmental tribunals to the Department of Justice. The transfer of responsibility for that tribunal to the Department of Justice subsequently took place in 2011.”
“— to support the Executive to fulfil their responsibilities in this area.”
“— responsibility for its funding rests with the Executive Office. It will not come out of the Department of Justice's budget, and I welcome the commitments that those costs will be met. However, I support the idea that this needs to be funded by Her Majesty's Treasury —”