Mike Nesbitt
Strangford · Ulster Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“Think public service, wisdom, generosity and courtesy. Think integrity, insight and curiosity, the lack of which is a key criticism of the two public inquiry reports of recent days.”
“I spoke during Members' statements earlier about the untimely passing of the Western Trust's chair, Dr Tom Frawley CBE. I repeat my condolences to his family, his friends and his many admirers.”
“I absolutely share the Member's ambition to see people living in the community. The trusts provide a range of evidence-informed programmes for individuals who are awaiting assessment. For children and young people, early intervention teams deliver proactive needs-led programmes that are neurodiversity-affirming and trauma-informed.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Western Trust has assured me that it has undertaken a comprehensive early engagement exercise with stakeholders, involving all political parties, local businesses, service users, community groups, the Patient and Client Council (PCC), local media, community planning partners and Departments, including mine and D…”
“The role played by social workers in delivering safeguarding and family support interventions is complex and challenging. The work frequently pivots on multidisciplinary collaboration, with parents and carers positioned as partners in the formulation and delivery of safeguarding and support plans.”
“I fully recognise the impact of the current delays on individuals and families. The situation has arisen due to a combination of factors, including funding that falls short of objectively assessed need and previously missed opportunities to reform health and social care delivery.”
The complete record
Every one of 5,312 lines we hold for Mike Nesbitt, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 69 of 107.
“We have set up a unit in the Department or an advisory group". None of that guarantees the sort of outcomes that we are looking for. <BR /> <BR />I commend the outcomes in the motion and the amendment: to prevent educational disadvantage; to support children with special educational needs; to promote emotional health and well-being amongst children; to improve terms and conditions for workers; to deliver accessible and affordable childcare. Those are the measures that this strategy, whenever it comes, should be measured against. <BR /> <BR />As the economy spokesperson, I say that one of the outcomes is about not just child development; it is about our shocking levels of economic inactivity. The motion talks about the positive impact on the economy of this strategy.”
“<BR /> <BR />I am not sure whether any Member remembers Mark Friedman coming to this Building some years ago to talk about this results-based accountability scheme, which he is basically the father of. He wrote the book 'Trying Hard is Not Good Enough'. That is pertinent to what we do as a devolved Administration. We tend to say that we are working night and day on this problem, as if that is going to fix it. Working night and day does not guarantee success. We have to stop focusing on just the inputs and outputs of government. We have to focus on the outcomes. We are very good at the inputs: we are spending a lot of money and doing this and that. The outputs now are, for example, "1,000 people have attended awareness programmes. 10,000 people have responded to our consultation.”
“It has to be affordable, not £10,000-plus for each child, as Miss Brogan and others pointed out, but it also has to be accessible. There was another scheme that was about giving four hours a day to preschool children. The report claimed that it had been extremely successful, with a success rate of well over 90%, in offering families places. However, that included, for example, a family who came to see me in my office in Newtownards and had been offered a place in Suffolk in West Belfast. By the time they got there and back, they had about an hour and a half before it was time to go and collect the child. That was not a success in my view. I hope that, this time, we will go forward in the spirit of an outcome-based accountability Programme for Government. That is a results-based programme.”
“I chaired several meetings of the scrutiny Committee, and we tried to understand where the blockage was with bringing forward a strategy, not least because it had a budget line. From memory, there was £12 million for childcare that, for a long time, sat unspent. This is an opportunity to get it right this time, and I do believe that is not just about affordable childcare but about affordable and accessible childcare.”
“Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, thank you very much. I congratulate you and wish you well. I hope that you enjoy the view. I also congratulate all those who made their maiden speech: Cheryl Brownlee, Kate Nicholl, Danny Baker, Nick Mathison and Sorcha Eastwood. Thanks also to my colleague Mr Butler for tabling the amendment and to Mrs Mason, Miss Brogan, Mr Baker and Ms Kimmins for tabling the motion. <BR /> <BR />At this point, I am getting sick of being nice to people and am going to pick a fight. The fight that I choose to pick is with Mr Butler, who opened his remarks by bemoaning the fact that he and others have been at this for two years. I feel that I have been at this for over 12 years. I remind the House that, until May 2016, the issue fell within the remit of the then Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister.”
“All these things come upon us and we do not have a reserve to help is start to work through that fix. The thing that is missing is something that I remember the late Martin McGuinness and Peter Robinson promoting at all-party talks back in the day, and that was the sense of a Northern Ireland bond, whereby we would raise money specifically for projects in Northern Ireland. I note it is not in the letter. I have not heard it discussed in the talks that led to the restoration, and, if either First Minister could shed some light on that, I would very much appreciate it.”
“If we think about transforming the health service, we have to take a blank map of Northern Ireland and populate it with the ideal National Health Service structure, then take the map of where we are and figure out how we get from A to B in simple, affordable steps. Those steps will not be affordable unless we get the appropriate help from London. <BR /> <BR />I will finish by mentioning one thing that is in the letter to the Prime Minister and one thing that is not that fascinates me, that I am curious about and that maybe the First Ministers can address. What is in the letter is a call for a fiscal reserve, and it makes enormous sense to have that kind of rainy day money, because what happens come the next pandemic, holiday pay or McCloud judgement?”
“<BR /> <BR />We need to attack the barriers to people becoming economically active, and I can think of no bigger barrier than the lack of accessible and affordable childcare. I am glad to see that the Executive are going to make affordable and accessible childcare one of the key priorities for the rest of the mandate. You cannot fix the lack of affordable and accessible childcare unless you have the appropriate funds to do so. <BR /> <BR />I understand that we have to focus on the current pressures, not least the public-sector pay deal, but we also have to think about infrastructure, otherwise we will short-change the next generation.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. On the second point, that is a matter of interpretation. On the first part, yes, they are complementary, but I would rather keep the focus on what the UK Government are and are not doing for us financially. <BR /> <BR />Back in 1998, the buzz phrase, as Members will remember, was "the peace dividend", and that was a financial thing. We were saying that, if we stopped spending tens of millions, as we had to, on security, we would free up that money to invest in the economy and therefore in our people and in prosperity. It seems, 25-and-a-bit years later, that far too many people have not had a taste of that prosperity agenda. For example, I point out the truly shocking levels of economic inactivity in our society.”
“The block grant is not UK charity. The block grant is about giving us the appropriate financial tools to ensure that our people prosper.”
“The block grant is not about being a sponger. The annual subvention is about giving us the tools that we need to run the country; in fact, I cannot describe it better than another Harold, Harold McCusker, did in the House of Commons in November 1985:”
“I congratulate Mr Donnelly, Ms Forsythe, Mr Tennyson and Mr Brett, who have made their maiden speeches. I see that Mrs Brett has just noticed that I have got to my feet — and has logged off. <BR /> <BR />I come to speak in support of the motion. I will not oppose the amendment, but it conflates matters a little. The amendment, it seems to me, deals with the short-term pressures that we as an Executive and Assembly have to deal with, whereas the motion is about sustainable long-term funding from London. I do not think that we have always had fair and equitable funding coming out of the UK Government; in fact, it has not always been generous. Looking around the Chamber, I see that not that many Members will remember, as I do, that famous moment in 1974 when the then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, described us all as "spongers".”
“<BR /> <BR />Mr Speaker, I do not know what other Members' plans are for private Members' Bills, but I assure colleagues that, as soon as you call a break, I will be heading for the Bill Office like Usain Bolt or, as it might be more accurate to say, like Usain Bolt's grandad.”
“<BR /> <BR />Over the past couple of years, of course, we have missed opportunities to build those relationships, not just here in the Chamber but at the various Committees, where I think that those relationships are built and where we best get the opportunity to understand each other and what we are trying to achieve. Of course, through our Ministers, in our relationship with the Government of Ireland, we have missed out on the North/South Ministerial Council, where Ministers come together and understand each other. This is an opportunity to make those pledges, and I wish everybody well. I look forward to finding out who the Ministers will be in support of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister.”
“I also congratulate the new First Minister and deputy First Minister and welcome their initial remarks, which I think we can all buy into. I see that Mr Muir has a copy of the 1998 agreement, and that reminds me of the initial commitment that is in that agreement. On a day when we are all making pledges, perhaps we should pledge to recommit ourselves to the declaration of support in that agreement, where we pledge to take a fresh opportunity and a fresh start so that we can have relationships that are built on tolerance of each other, on reconciliation of building mutual trust and, above all, on demonstrating mutual respect. It seems to me that those values are the only solid foundation on which to go forward.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. It would be remiss of me not to begin by congratulating you and assuring you that I am not about to burst into a chorus of that great 1976 hit 'It Should Have Been Me'.”
“<BR /> <BR />Mr Maskey, I thank you, and I wish you every success and happiness as you open the next chapter. <BR /> <BR />I finish, Mr Acting Speaker, by expressing regret that Mr Allister would not take an intervention. For those wondering what I was going to say, it was simply this: if his analysis is correct, why has he ended his boycott of this Building?”
“That is what he did, and it was a much more impressive greeting than I could have offered upstairs. Not only did we spend a lot of time chatting in the Speaker's Office but, when I said that I was now taking this worldwide president on a tour of the Building, Mr Maskey came with us. At one point, we left Mr Maskey and the president in the Senate Chamber where they spent over 15 minutes, as he charmed her into agreeing to bring that conference to Northern Ireland. That is the sort of thing that Mr Maskey has been doing for the past three years, which we have not seen, but it has been incredibly important for this institution, particularly at a time when, in the court of public opinion, we do not always necessarily score a straight 10.”
“<BR /> <BR />I think that we all can agree on what Mr Maskey did in that Chair: the neutrality, the friendliness and the professionalism. Of course, we do not see a lot of the work of the Speaker, which includes meeting and greeting and promoting this institution. A little while ago, I was asked by the Northern Ireland Centre of Competitiveness whether I would entertain a worldwide global president whom they were flying into Belfast in the hope of attracting an annual conference. They were to come up here one Friday morning, and I sent a message to Mr Maskey, "Could you join us at 11 o'clock for a cup of coffee in the Members' Bar?" The answer came back straight away: "No, I will not. You come here, and I will entertain you in the Speaker's Office".”
“But he never did. <BR /> <BR />Here, we served together on the Committee for the Office of First Minister and deputy First Minister, scrutinising the work of the Executive Office. It is a matter of record that, over the past nearly 26 years, that was the only Committee that ever single-handedly put legislation through the House. That was the Northern Ireland Public Service Ombudsman Bill, which became an Act. It took a long time. As Chair, I had the pleasure as of steering the last few passages. It was not without its challenges to republican ideology, but Mr Maskey took a practical and pragmatic view that the prize was worth paying a little price for and that the price did not compromise his principles. I very much appreciate what you did, Mr Maskey, in steering the Sinn Féin group through that Committee.”
“Sorry, Mr Acting Speaker, I did not hear you there. <BR /> <BR />I just want to say a few words in praise of the outgoing Speaker. When I came here in 2011 as a rookie Ulster Unionist, I encountered a well-seasoned republican in Mr Maskey, and I quickly came to realise, to my surprise, that we could work together harmoniously, much more so than in our previous encounters as interviewee and interviewer at Ulster Television. Mr Maskey used to come in, particularly on a Thursday night, for the politics, and I remember that, one night, the editor whispered in my earpiece, "If you push him any harder, he might deck you"”
“On a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. Mr McNulty opened the sitting with a rather dodgy point of order on sport, and I want to do the same to close. Every Member in the House today has signed a round-robin open letter to the International Gymnastics Federation deploring the decision to bar three of our sportspeople from competing in the Commonwealth Games in Birmingham and asking it to reverse that decision. We have not agreed on everything in this sitting of the Assembly, but every Member has stood firm on that point. I wish to thank them for their solidarity.”
“I am thinking of every MLA, past and present, from over the past 11 years. To them, I reach out in solidarity and friendship. To everybody who is standing on 5 May, I wish godspeed. I commend the Bill to the House.”
“There is also the opportunity to look at alternative dispute resolutions. Perhaps the loss of the serious harm test will not be as impactful as some Members may think. It is an open question. <BR /> <BR />I leave it there. I do not think that we should let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and this legislation represents an advance in balancing these competing rights: the right to freedom of expression and the right to protect your reputation against unwarranted and untrue attack. <BR /> <BR />If I may, Mr Deputy Speaker, this will probably be my last contribution to the House in this mandate. There is, obviously, no certainty that it will not be my last contribution to the House ever.”
“<BR /> <BR />I thank everyone who spoke, including the Chair. <BR /> <BR />Mr McHugh has concerns about jury trials, and I agree with him that defamation is now on the political agenda, and it will stay there in the next mandate because it is an ever-changing and fluid area of work that we need to be looking at. <BR /> <BR />Mr O'Toole has embarrassed me for, yet again, having failed to declare my membership of the all-party group on press freedom and media sustainability. I apologise to the House for the omission. He mentioned his regret with regard to serious harm, as did Mr Muir. I, too, would have preferred serious harm to stay in the Bill, but it was the will of the House that it be removed. The Lady Chief Justice's office is looking at pre-trial protocols with regard to defamation cases.”
“I thank all the Members who contributed to the debate, particularly the Minister. <BR /> <BR />I accept the sensitivities with regard to jury trials, which the Minister and Mr McHugh both referenced. However, it is fair to say that not that many defamation cases go to trial in this jurisdiction and, of those that do, even fewer have a jury trial. Indeed, there are occasions when the judge dismisses the jury because it has become such a complex legal argument; but we shall see. <BR /> <BR />Currently, we are the only jurisdiction in the United Kingdom that has jury trials for defamation cases. As we know, the Justice Minister of the Government of Ireland, Helen McEntee, recommends to the Cabinet in the Republic of Ireland that they bring forward legislation to remove jury trials.”
“The first is, hopefully, getting defamation law on the statute book if the House agrees today. The second is getting the issue of defamation on our political agenda for the next mandate. I leave my remarks there.”
“My biggest regret is that we are not doing anything about the internet, where reputations are trashed minute by minute if not second by second, but I understand that I have failed to persuade the House of my proposals. Again, I hope that that will be part of the review that the departmental officials in Finance will undertake over the next couple of years. We also look to what other jurisdictions will be doing in this area because it is not just an issue for us, and it is not just a national issue. It is an international issue with which it is very difficult to grapple. <BR /> <BR />Dr Scott said that my Bill was far from perfect and was not a panacea, but it was a decent first step in the right direction. That is how I commend it to the House today. I am pleased that, with the Bill, I have achieved, I think, two things.”
“I hope that, in agreeing to remove the presumption of jury trials in this jurisdiction, we will make it speedier, more easily understood and less expensive for plaintiffs to take cases of defamation.”
“SLAPPs have no legal definition at this stage, but, broadly, it is where somebody of wealth and potential influence brings forward a defamation case that, they understand, has absolutely no merit in law in order to frustrate publication that might be in the public interest. Given that the House has agreed, through the Bill, to place a duty on the Department to keep under review not only the workings of the Bill but developments in the realm of defamation, I hope that the Minister will confirm that SLAPPs will be part of that review. <BR /> <BR />The biggest impact of the 2013 Act in England and Wales — Dr Scott referred to this in his evidence to the Committee — is non-jury trials. It was described by Dr Scott in October of last year as having highly beneficial consequences. He said:”
“That is an in-joke that you will have to ask him for an explanation for. <BR /> <BR />There have been a lot of developments over the past 102 months, including developments with regard to the passage of the Bill, not least at Consideration Stage, when the House decided that it did not wish to support my redefinition of the test of defamation as being one that caused serious harm. I accept the will of the Committee and the House in that regard. I also accept that Dr Scott, who has been monitoring the 2013 Act in England and Wales, has come to the conclusion that it has not delivered as was particularly intended. <BR /> <BR />Another development of late is the so-called SLAPP: the strategic lawsuit against public participation.”
“Judena was chief executive, and Andrew was the academic who consulted deeply on the issue and then wrote the report that was published in 2016. I also thank Dr Mark Hanna from the school of law at Queen's University Belfast for his assistance recently. <BR /> <BR />I will not risk the wrath of the Speaker, who said in his written encouragement yesterday that it is not the norm for Members to name officials in the House. Therefore, there are about nine or 10 officials from the Bill Office, the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) and the Department of Finance whom I will not name, but I thank them. I thank the Minister for allowing that engagement, which I found extremely useful. There is one official whom I particularly thank for his expert knowledge of the life and times of Kenny Rogers.”
“I understand that Mark H Durkan still hopes to introduce a private Member's Bill and to get it through all its stages in the remaining five days of the mandate. This Bill is the opposite. It is certainly not built for speed. It has been 3,106 days since Lord Black of Brentwood came to the Building to launch my consultation on the Defamation Bill. As this is the Bill's Final Stage, I thank him and some others. I thank the Lords Lexden and Empey for keeping the issue alive in the Palace of Westminster. I thank Jeff Dudgeon, Brian Garrett and Austen Morgan, who helped to shape the Bill, which, of course, flows from the Defamation Act 2013 in England and Wales. I thank the former members of the Northern Ireland Law Commission, particularly Judena Leslie and Dr Andrew Scott.”
“I am trying to reform the Bill, not the pronunciation. I beg to move”
“Further to Mr O'Dowd's question, if the Government of Ireland choose to put in additional moneys to Tourism Ireland, what are the implications for its work programme?”
“For eight and a half years now, on and off, I have been working on the same private Member's Bill, which is a Bill to reform Northern Ireland's defamation laws. I am asking for a suspension of Standing Order 42(1) in order to allow the Final Stage of the Defamation Bill to be heard and whether Members are content for the Bill to be dispatched for Royal Assent.”
“Does the Minister support the call on the Chancellor to bring in a rebate on fuel tax for essential users to mitigate the high costs that are impacting the haulage sector and, indeed, carers, who clock up a lot of mileage?”
“I thank the Minister for making it clear that his Department got no heads-up from the employers. Did the Department get advance notice from any other source? Exactly which laws has P&O breached?”
“On a different subject, Mrs Kelly suggested that the review of the display of artefacts was very well advanced. I should say so, because the Speaker published the outcome at 2.17 pm.”
“I thank Mr O'Dowd, and I join him in thanking Assembly staff for their work during the pandemic. Has there been or will there be any assessment of the impact on productivity of working from home? Is there a plan for the future — a return to what was or a hybrid future for staff?”
“<BR /> <BR />In conclusion, during a conversation with Mr Buchanan, I made the point that my first job in broadcasting was as a sports reporter and that after a match, whether it was Gaelic, rugby or football, you had 45 seconds to sum it all up. When I came here, however, and was going to make a speech, officials in my party said, "Now, remember you have only five minutes", and I thought, "How on earth am I going to fill five minutes of time in that Chamber?". I commend the Further Consideration Stage of the Defamation Bill to the House.”
“I thank the three Members for their support and contributions. I very much accept the legitimacy of Mr McHugh's concern about whether we do or do not have jury trials. I remind him that we now have clause 11, which factors in a review of the Act's operation, so that situation may not be forever. We shall see how it works out. <BR /> <BR />Mr Buchanan asked whether the amendment to clause 9 strengthens or weakens the Bill. The advice that I have been given from the Department and the Office of the Legislative Counsel is that it is better because it is a better form of words. That is all that I can say to you, sir.”
“No, it amends it. An amendment is an amendment. It does not remove something; it amends it. I recommend the amendment to the House.”
“I thank the Member for the point. He is right to say that it does not add anything, but I cannot remove clause 9 because the House has already voted that it stand part of the Bill. It was previously clause 13, and, at Consideration Stage, the House said that it should stand part of the Bill, so I cannot come back and say, "Let us now remove that clause".”
“<BR /> <BR />The alternative was to bring forward an amendment, because it was put to me that courts can sometimes really push themselves to try to find meaning that may not have been intended, and that takes us into the area of unintended consequences. Therefore, the least risky form of words was that which we have come up with in amendment No 2, so I recommend that to the House. That is all I have to say.”
“That is just a clean-up of the language. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 2 deals with clause 9, which is the clause formerly known as clause 13. There was a clear policy intent in having that clause in the Bill at Consideration Stage, which was to close off any potential loopholes with regard to the old clause 5 and the old clause 10, neither of which survived Consideration Stage and neither of which now stand part of the Bill. In consultation, the ideal solution would have been an amendment to leave out clause 9 in its entirety, but it was put to me that that would be to reopen a decision of the House, and it is not for any Bill sponsor, be it a private Member, a Minister or a Department on behalf of the Executive, to try to reverse the will of the House.”
“However, the only area where I envisaged the Department making regulations was with regard to the operators of websites, and that was in the old clause 5 at Consideration Stage. That clause did not survive Consideration Stage and no longer stands part of the Bill, and, therefore, I ask the House to join me in removing all references to regulations in order to restore some coherence to the Bill. We leave out line 11 in clause 12 and leave out the entire clause 14. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 5 is simply a matter of syntax. The OLC said that the preferred commencement phrasing is "This Act comes into operation". It currently states:”
“I am glad to move amendment Nos 2, 3, 4 and 5. I note that all the amendments are in my name, but they are certainly not entirely of my making, and it is entirely appropriate to thank officials from the Bill Office, the Department of Finance and the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC), whose professionalism and engagement was invaluable to me in trying to tidy up the Bill, which is what the amendments are about. This is a clean-up, and as a man with my background — a former binman of some status — this is my favourite part and I was born to embrace it, eh? <BR /> <BR />I will go out of sequence, if I may, because amendment No 2 is the one that needs a little bit of explanation. I will deal with amendment Nos 3 and 4. There are two references in the Bill, as currently constituted, to the Department of Finance making regulations.”
“<BR /> <BR />I do not think that I have anything fresh to say about the amendments that has not been said already, so I will not delay the House. The fact that the Bill sponsor appears content with the amendments coming out of the Department is good enough for me.”
“To summarise, on the former point, the smaller and more family-orientated the organisation, the more impactful the Bill will be through the obligations that it puts on that organisation. On the latter point about a family-run business, if I can use a euphemism, the more awkward it may be to try to resolve the idea that there is domestic abuse that demands a period of safe leave. <BR /> <BR />Those are things that we will figure out as we move ahead. They are certainly not obstacles to addressing what is a very important issue. I commend the Bill sponsor for tackling it, because it is easily tucked away, forgotten about, ignored and brushed under the carpet. It is commendable that we are looking at it.”