David McIlveen
North Antrim · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“I thank the member for her answer. I completely appreciate that, when we are dealing with personnel, there should be confidentiality. However, in a general sense, will the member assure me and the House that there has been even-handedness in the way in which the matter has been dealt with and that original thought in social media and the…”
“I thank the Minister for her answer. I am very glad that the last question that I asked in this mandate — of her anyway — delivered some good news. There had been some concerns about the fact that, historically, there was at times a backlog in processing blue badge applications. A lot of time was involved in getting them processed.”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. He is aware that the news that the good people of east Belfast had to come to terms with last week is something that my constituents in North Antrim have had to face up to on at least three occasions recently, with the closure of Patton's and the announcements by JTI and Michelin.”
“I thank the First Minister for her answers so far. The Minister will also be aware that another central component of the Delivering Social Change initiative was the nurture unit programme. Can the Minister give us an indication of the impact so far of the nurture unit programme?”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will try my very best. As we come to the dawning of the age of the Department for Employment and Learning, there is obviously an opportunity for reflection. Whilst the Minister has been very good at delivering initiatives, some may say that he has not been so successful at delivering reform.”
“I sincerely hope that narrow political points of view will be set aside when it comes to the debate and the vote because I genuinely and sincerely believe that if one Member — even if it is just one — decides to vote against these changes, they will be on the wrong side of public opinion.”
The complete record
Every one of 177 lines we hold for David McIlveen, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 4.
“I thank the member for her answer. I completely appreciate that, when we are dealing with personnel, there should be confidentiality. However, in a general sense, will the member assure me and the House that there has been even-handedness in the way in which the matter has been dealt with and that original thought in social media and the use of social media would not be viewed in the same way as retweeting or reusing somebody else's quotations? Obviously, those two things would, in the real world, be viewed as two very different scenarios.”
“I thank the Minister for her answer. I am very glad that the last question that I asked in this mandate — of her anyway — delivered some good news. There had been some concerns about the fact that, historically, there was at times a backlog in processing blue badge applications. A lot of time was involved in getting them processed. Is the Minister able to advise us whether anything has been done to ensure that a more streamlined application process is in place to ensure that those much-needed passes are not bogged down in bureaucracy?”
“I welcome the money that has been allocated for Peace IV. Will the First Minister update the House on what amount of that will be allocated to trauma services?”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. He is aware that the news that the good people of east Belfast had to come to terms with last week is something that my constituents in North Antrim have had to face up to on at least three occasions recently, with the closure of Patton's and the announcements by JTI and Michelin. In that context, will he advise the House what support Invest NI has given to the wider manufacturing sector in recent days?”
“I thank the First Minister for her answers so far. The Minister will also be aware that another central component of the Delivering Social Change initiative was the nurture unit programme. Can the Minister give us an indication of the impact so far of the nurture unit programme?”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will try my very best. As we come to the dawning of the age of the Department for Employment and Learning, there is obviously an opportunity for reflection. Whilst the Minister has been very good at delivering initiatives, some may say that he has not been so successful at delivering reform. Will the Minister update the House on the reform that he is most proud of in his five years as Employment and Learning Minister?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Would the Member also agree with me that, whilst some people have tried to hold to the virtues of the 1998 agreement and the structures and progresses that were supposed to be set in place in that, another time was missed in that argument, namely 2007 when the electorate also decided that it wanted reform and a better way of doing government in Northern Ireland? Would he accept that those arguments have been missed in some of the contributions today?”
“<BR /> <BR />One thing that I find very annoying in this role is that some people in political life seem to look at politics as having an end game and think that we will get to a certain point and that is it and everything will be better. That is not the type of politics that I want to be part of. I want to be part of a system that is always seeking to improve and always trying to do things better. I hope that this is not the last debate that we have on the size of the Assembly and the size of government in Northern Ireland. With the changes in boundaries likely to happen during the next term, we may very well find ourselves in 2021 with an even lesser number, and I would wholeheartedly welcome that. I hope that there will be full support in the House for the Bill today, and I look forward to hearing how the debate develops.”
“I certainly look forward to the elections in 2021, as I do to the elections in 2016, and I hope that the public will see that there has been a genuine attempt on our part to tighten the belt a little bit. The Bill to reduce the number of Departments has already proceeded to the next stage and the Assembly Members (Reduction of Numbers) Bill is proceeding to the next stage. I hope that the public will see that some effort is being made to make this place run more efficiently. I believe passionately in smaller government, and I believe that we should continue along the road to make government as efficient and as lean as possible, and I look forward to the next mandate to see the further steps.”
“It may sound like a semantic point, but what we are agreeing on today, I hope, is the principle that the reduction will take place by 2021. To the best of my knowledge, what has been agreed as part of the Fresh Start Agreement is that it will take effect in 2021. In effect, the Member is confusing two separate issues in that what we are voting on today is the agreement of the concept in 'A Fresh Start', which is the document that sets the mechanism in place. To be fair, confusing those two issues is perhaps not the way that this debate is supposed to go. <BR /> <BR />How do we take this forward? I hope today that there will be cross-party, cross-House support to bring these changes about.”
“Yes, as you can see, the move of Mr Nesbitt's party was hugely impactful. I apologise and put the record straight; I must have missed that. <BR /> <BR />As we were saying, political agreement has to be found, and that is why I come back to this point. Between 2010 and 2015, a two-party coalition Government sought to find agreement on this very issue and could not do it. I think that we have to look at that —”
“I will repeat: we operate in a five-party coalition Government that have to find agreement —”
“I sincerely hope that narrow political points of view will be set aside when it comes to the debate and the vote because I genuinely and sincerely believe that if one Member — even if it is just one — decides to vote against these changes, they will be on the wrong side of public opinion. I do not know what their reasons for doing so would be but if, because of their own political stature, they feel that this move would affect them personally or their party politically, I would say to them that they have had at least 10 years to convince the electorate that they are the people who should be stronger when it comes to an election. Therefore, it is their fault that they find themselves in a position where they may be disadvantaged. I am not one bit concerned about these changes. I would happily talk my way out of my own job if —”
“That is not going to set the world on fire as far as savings are concerned, but it is a sign of moving towards normal politics and away from over-governance, which there has been far too much of in Northern Ireland for very many years, and it is about breaking down that culture. That will take time and commitment, but I am hugely encouraged that we seem to find ourselves in a position where there is broad agreement to do that. <BR /> <BR />I believe that this is one of the few debates in the House that the public is watching. It is one of the few debates in the House when the public care about the outcome of what happens.”
“Within this system, which those who criticise it say is dysfunctional, unable to make decisions, and all sorts of other things that are well on the record, we should take some credit from the fact that something that effectively could be described as "turkeys voting for Christmas" has been able to find relative agreement. We should take some heart from that. It is something that the electorate will look upon with favour and sympathy. <BR /> <BR />In monetary terms — this is a back-of-an-envelope calculation — if you take the salary and expenses of even just those 18 Members, we are probably talking about somewhere in the region of £2·5 million.”
“Well, I do not know; some people in this House, maybe the Member included, might need a banana leaf at times to cover some of the things that they are trying to hide. The bottom line is that you have to accept that there is a principle of non-agreement when it comes to this issue, and not just in the Assembly. If you take a look at the Westminster coalition Government of 2010 to 2015, you see that there was an opportunity in a voluntary coalition to reduce the number of MPs, and those negotiations failed; they could not find agreement.”
“It is important that we do it. <BR /> <BR />On top of that, it was a fairly complicated piece of work because we had to find agreement not only amongst the parties but with the British Government, the sovereign Government, to allow us to take this forward ourselves. I think that that is right. I support the Secretary of State in allowing that to happen. It is right that there should be the opportunity to debate the Bill locally. There should be the opportunity for decisions to be taken locally. Therefore, I accept the fact that, whilst we would, in an ideal world, like to see this happening sooner than 2021, we had to find agreement within a five-party coalition system, and that is what we have been able to do. <BR /> <BR />Mr Allister spoke a little earlier about this being a fig leaf.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. I think that it has been well explained why this cannot be implemented until 2021. I will certainly come to that in a few moments. I appreciate that there is a certain amount of cynicism in the Member's tone when he raises that. We have the decision and, if the Bill gets through, it will be set in legislation. It is going to happen. I think that the Member has to accept that. It is not exclusive to this House. It happens in other political institutions, where deals are done and reneged upon. I simply do not believe that we can allow the time to pass by on such an important piece of work as this and allow anything to happen, either foreseen or unforeseen, that may stand in the way of that. The time is right to do this. I think that, on the whole, the political will is there to do it.”
“Sometimes, we just have to accept — this applies not just to political life but to business life and other spheres — that you have to grasp the nettle. Sometimes, an opportunity comes along that has perhaps not been there before and may not happen again. We have found ourselves —”
“In the spirit of the Bill and in the spirit of the outcome of the Bill, I will keep my comments efficient. I will not prolong the debate any longer than it needs to be. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. I believe that those of us who support the Bill — both its accelerated passage and movement to the next stage — are on the right side of public opinion. I believe that it is something that the public want to see. They want to see us tightening our belts, regardless of the consequences, and it is opportune that we should do that before the end of this mandate. I do not accept the argument that this is something that we should simply kick into the long grass and sort out in the next mandate; nor do I accept the argument that this is being done out of some sense of insecurity about the next mandate.”
“I hope that I am correct in my understanding that that is now not going to be the case and that it will remain in the Department of Health. I would welcome that; perhaps we could get confirmation of that. <BR /> <BR />I support the Bill and I hope that we will see it progress as quickly as possible. I hope that, for once, the news about the Assembly that is carried this evening will be that we have agreed something that is going to save the public some much-needed money. I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate and hope that we have cross-House support for the Bill.”
“<BR /> <BR />There is also the issue of arm's-length bodies. I ask the Minister to address in her closing comments what the likely impact will be on those. Will there now be an opportunity, with a reduced government size as far as the number of Departments is concerned, to take a look at the arm's-length bodies — these unelected quangos, if I could call them that? I accept that many of them deliver a very good service. However, I do not believe that they should be any more immune from cuts than the rest of us. <BR /> <BR />I know that there had been some suggestion that the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service, which I have done a lot of work with, would be brought into the new Department of Justice.”
“In relation to staff, there will obviously be concerns around a contraction of any element of the public service. My understanding is that the terms and conditions of employment will remain relatively unchanged. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that. Trade unions will be consulted. I understand that trade unions will have their own views, and there is always an element of hysteria among the trade unions when there is any sort of suggestion around a reduction in the number of public servants, the size of Departments, and the number of staff who come along with that. However, I am sure that those consultations will happen. Whilst we may not be able to deliver everything that the trade unions are asking for, I am sure that every effort will be made to make this as smooth a transition as possible.”
“<BR /> <BR />I am not going to dwell on the accelerated passage procedure any further. We are where we are with that. If we are to get the Bill passed before the election in 2016, we have to be realistic. It would have been better had we been able to do that this time last year, but, unfortunately, circumstances somewhat overtook us.”
“<BR /> <BR />I am glad that 'A Fresh Start' has been produced and that there is agreement on it. I am glad that legislation has already been brought to the House that will enable the decisions that were taken in that agreement to happen, and to happen as quickly as possible. Members should not be in the business of insulting not just the intelligence of the people in the Assembly and on the Executive but the intelligence of people outside the Assembly who know that there is a coalition Government in this place, know the reason for that and know that every effort is being made to try to make this place work as well as it possibly can for the people whom we represent. For anybody to be in denial about that shows, with respect, an element of naivety about the position that we find ourselves in.”
“We have finally got to a point at which the number of Departments as they stand will be reduced to nine. Of course, there are then the outworkings of that, with a reduction in the number of private offices, special advisers and permanent secretaries and in the whole infrastructure that comes with government. <BR /> <BR />I am bemused when I listen to some people in the Assembly, regardless of how long they have been here, who seem to fail to see the complexities that exist in a coalition Government. Whether we like it or not, we are in a Government in which we rely on an element of agreement to get things through. I am hugely regretful that there are some parties in the Assembly who have failed in their duty to step up to the mark, do the right thing and do the things that the people want us to do.”
“For the first time in a long time, we are debating a Bill that, in the world outside this little bubble, people are very interested in. We have spent the last four and a half years in the knowledge that we have had spending cuts imposed on us, asking the public and the public sector to tighten their belt, feel a bit of pain and do something to be more efficient. This is our opportunity, as a Government, to contribute. I share Mr Lyttle's aspirations to make the Assembly more efficient, to make it work better and, ultimately, to make sure that there is not wastage in it. <BR /> <BR />We have been asking doctors, pharmacists and civil servants to tighten their belt. Therefore, we should be very proud of the Bill. It could be better, but it could always be better.”
“There are others who are on a journey of — I use the word guardedly — vengeance. They are disappointed by things that have happened in the past and, rather than concentrate on where we should be going, dwell on those things, which allows them to become bogged down in preventing the progress that is required. You may even meet some who are on a journey of inflexibility and do not accept the fact that the world around them is changing. Rather than focusing on the destination, those people are completely bogged down by the changes that are happening around them that they find very difficult to accept. <BR /> <BR />As my colleague Mr Frew said, that is not what we are elected to do. We are not elected to renege on our responsibilities as elected representatives. Sometimes, decisions will be easy; sometimes, they will be difficult.”
“They are more concerned with sound bites and what might be happening around them than with concentrating on their destination.”
“The motorcycle sits in the garage for 49 weeks of the year, given our wonderful Northern Ireland climate, but, in the three weeks of the year that I manage to get it out of the garage, I get on it and do not really choose where I am going. I do not really care where I am going. It is about the experience of the journey and the freedom and enjoyment that come from it. The reason that I tell that brief story is that, in my time in politics, I have met people who fall into that category. They are not overly concerned about the destination; all they seem to be consumed with is the journey. In politics, that is a dangerous position to find ourselves in. <BR /> <BR />I have found that some people are on a journey of electability.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly on the Bill. Before I move to the substantive nature of what I want to say, I, too, pay tribute to Mr Pat Ramsey, who, I understand, will have his last plenary today. Some might say that, in this business of politics, gentlemen are in short supply; therefore, it is regrettable when we lose one. I can certainly say that I have always found Mr Ramsey to be an exceptionally good man and a huge encouragement, and I have enjoyed very much getting to know him over the last few years. <BR /> <BR />Anybody who knows me will know that, when I speak sometimes, in order for me to process it in my own mind, I like to demonstrate with an anecdote, and I will start with a little story to set the scene for what I want to say. Some people may know that I am a keen motorcyclist.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I accept his argument, and I am certainly not a huge fan of accelerated passage. However, on 23 December 2014, the Stormont House Agreement was, to the best of everyone's knowledge in the House, agreed, but it was reneged on. Had that agreement, which carried the original blueprint for the reduction in the number of Departments, not been reneged on, we would have had 18 months to scrutinise the Bill, to go through it with a fine-toothed comb and not have to use accelerated passage. Will the Member accept that it is the result of some parties reneging on an agreement that has, unfortunately, brought us to this position?”
“I thank the First Minister for his answer. He touched on the issue of paramilitary activity. Does he agree that the provisions in the Stormont Agreement offer, perhaps, the most comprehensive package of measures ever to deal with paramilitary activity in our Province?”
“I, too, want to pay tribute to the First Minister for the four faithful decades of service he has given to this Province of ours. I have no hesitancy in saying that when books are being written about Mr Robinson, many of his critics will be lucky to get a footnote. I want to pay tribute to him in the strongest possible terms and wish him every blessing for his retirement.”
“I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box today and thank her for her answers so far. The Minister, I am sure, will be aware, having spoken to some local representatives, that we have an issue whereby the park-and-ride facility at Ballymena has been put under immense pressure because there is little alternative for people, given the situation with Cullybackey. <BR /> <BR />Now that we finally have a Minister for Regional Development who knows where North Antrim is, I wonder whether I can encourage her to visit the constituency in the near future so that she can see for herself the pressing urgency of the project.”
“I thank the Minister for his answers so far. He will be aware that, in March of this year, five prisoners were arrested over allegations of making threats towards police officers. There have also been numerous complaints from contractors going into the prison that they have been the subject of threats, particularly from Bush House. Does the Minister wish to comment on where we are today with the state of threats issued against officers, police officers and contractors?”
“However, as far as I am concerned, presumed consent is the last chance saloon. It is the place that you get to if all other options have failed and, even then, it is still going to cause an ethical issue. However, we are not at that point, and we have not exploited the other options that are open to us first of all. Therefore, I appeal to the sponsor and the Minister to get back round the table and see whether a more simple, a more effective and a more ethically neutral position can be found to bring the outcome that we all want to see.”
“<BR /> <BR />I desperately want to support a Bill that will help deal with the issue, that will help increase awareness and that will help to get more people on the organ donor register. I genuinely do not believe that this Bill is the way to do it. Therefore, I am asking the sponsor and the Minister to look at a more progressive way of dealing with this. This is punitive; this is going to the very last resort first. If we go through a process where opt-in is made similar to the Spanish model that we have heard a lot about today, and if that is given a try and we find that in one year, two years or however long it has to be gauged, that we are in a position where it has made little or no difference, then, yes, let us bring it back and start having a discussion about what else we can do.”
“I do not know what will happen to me as I drive back to North Antrim tonight. None of us knows what will happen as we drive back to our constituencies. Under this legislation, should it go forward, had I not got round to making my true feelings known about whether to opt out or opt in, an assumption is made that, regardless of what happens to me tonight, I consent to my organs being donated. Yes, my family has a veto, and I understand that. However, this is not about my family; it is about my wishes as an individual. This is about my choice, as an individual. Therefore, I have considerable difficulty that, in the event of my life being cut short, this state — this Assembly — has made an assumption of what my desires are. I find that deeply troubling, and I have considerable difficulty dealing with it.”
“We have often heard it said on issues as serious as this that you do not need to legislate; that you should maybe look at guidelines or something that will make things a little bit easier. To be honest, I do not see anything other than legislation dealing with this issue once and for all. That is because, ultimately, we are dealing with a split-second decision. This is unlike a court process or the issues that I listed before, where time is given. This is a split-second decision where a family member, as we stand at the minute, can decide to consent or not consent to the donation of organs. Therefore, I think that legislation is probably the best way to deal with that. <BR /> <BR />In summary, to opt out presumes that we know the time of our death. The fact is that we do not.”
“I have considerable difficulty and would be extremely vexed — I have had this conversation with my next of kin — if my next of kin were to come along in the event of my death and say, "Well actually, his wishes are not my wishes, and therefore I am going to stand in the way of his organs being donated". I have considerable difficulty with that. I believe that, so long as my decisions are made sincerely and with a sound mind, they should be honoured. Therefore, the issue of affirmation is something that, should a better piece of legislation be brought to the Assembly, we could perhaps look at in a lot more detail. <BR /> <BR />I want to touch again on the issue of the split-second nature of this. I think that this is where there is a difference and we do need legislation.”
“Therefore, it is not a motivation of faith that brings me to this position. However, it is a motivation of caring about what the state has control of, and of caring about the state assuming that, because I do not do something or my constituents do not do something, I and they are consenting to something else. I find that deeply troubling. It is something that we should all be aware of and something that, I think, we should all interrogate as thoroughly as we possibly can. <BR /> <BR />The fact is that the issue of affirmation already exists. Therefore, I do not see affirmation being the safeguard that is required to make this a good piece of legislation. In fact, quite honestly, I would have no difficulty about having a proper debate around the issue of affirmation in itself.”
“We now live in a world where forms and bureaucracy are just the order of the day. We are well used to it. Whether it is to do with filling in our passports, driving licence, pension credit forms, HMRC forms or social security, there is a plethora of publicly published forms that every person, no matter what their age or walk of life, will find themselves engaged in and having to sign. I do not see any reason why we could not look at an approach such as that first, before we veer into territory that has an extremely difficult ethical question for us to answer. I would much rather not be in that position. <BR /> <BR />I am not motivated really by faith when it comes to this particular issue. I take the view that when it comes to what happens to our bodies after we are gone, it is probably well worked out by a much higher hand than mine.”
“I do not accept that every effort has been made by Government to ensure that people are given that very important choice — a choice that I urge anyone to make — that they are on that list so that people can benefit from those organs whenever they leave this scene of time.”
“<BR /> <BR />I can think of an instance — it could be over 10 years ago — of a little baby who was abandoned and subsequently and tragically lost her life as a result. There was considerable controversy because an assumption was made by the state about what type of burial that child would have — there will always be people on the other side of the argument who will say that it was the wrong one. To over-trivialise the issue and to assume that this is a very simple approach, and that you can up organ donations as a result of presumed or deemed consent takes away from the very deeply held and sincere opinions of many who believe that it should be looked at in a different way. <BR /> <BR />I do not accept that the opt-in approach has been fully exploited.”
“At some time in my future life, I cannot rule out deciding that I want to be taken off it again. That is how life is: sometimes we change our views. In politics, we are often castigated when we change our minds — it is called a U-turn — but that is life. People change; people change their views and have different ideas as they grow in experience. That is extremely healthy. <BR /> <BR />An issue raised by the sponsor of the Bill equally needs to be looked at. In the health service, if someone is sectioned under the Mental Health Act, it is not a simple matter of that person being sectioned in a split second. A process has to be gone through, and the person who has been sectioned is given an opportunity to challenge. Therefore, it is not assumed that that person is in need of being sectioned under that piece of legislation.”
“If someone does not have a will, it is not assumed that whatever is left behind will go to one particular person or another. A very long process is undertaken and gone through with publicity, publication and probate to ensure that, as best as possible, the desires of the person who has passed away are taken into account. As politicians, we do not assume that the decisions that were made at the last election are the decisions that people will always want to make. We have elections every three, four or five years. There is an assumption that people's minds will change, that people will have different views, and that the views of today may not necessarily be the views of tomorrow. <BR /> <BR />I opened by saying that I am on the donor register. However, for many years of my adult life I chose not to be.”
“It is a principle that continues even when you look at issues beyond health. If someone pleads guilty in a court of law to a crime, there is not an assumption that they are guilty; they will be given a trial and the evidence will be interrogated. It is quite likely that, if someone pleads guilty to a crime, they are most likely guilty of that crime. However, my point is a general one, in that, on that basis, there is not an assumption of guilt.”
“We should all be dancing out the Yes Lobby to try to support it if it is to achieve what we believe it is designed to achieve. However, when we start to look at it in more detail and unpick the potential consequences of going down this particular road, whether we call it presumed or deemed consent, I think we have to be much more cautious about how we actually get to that point. I know that it has been mentioned already, but I am yet to be convinced, or have anybody on the other side of the argument convince me, that there is any precedent set in any part of the public service where a split-second decision like this — something that is so important to people and that obviously raises big ethical issues — can be done on the basis of silence meaning that it is assumed.”
“I think particularly of my good friend, Mr Wells, who has left, with the meat-free, alcohol-free, every-pleasure-free lifestyle that he leads. Unfortunately, I do not think I could fall into that category, but I did make that personal choice some time ago. Therefore, whilst I do have sincerely held, genuine concerns about the potential road that that particular approach to the legislation could take, in a desire to see a significant increase in donors way beyond where we are at the moment, I stand entirely shoulder to shoulder with Mrs Dobson and with everybody in the Chamber in wanting to achieve that outcome. My concern, however, is just around how we actually get to that point. <BR /> <BR />Of course, on the surface, I guess the Bill looks like a no-brainer.”