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 70 of 107.
“I thank the Bill sponsor for bringing this important Bill to the House. I want to pick up on a point, which featured towards the end of Mr O'Toole's remarks, about trying to allay the fears of employers and employer organisations who feel that we are, perhaps, open to the accusation of trying to rush the legislation through. As Mr O'Toole made clear, that is not the end of the process of commencing. We will go into a phase where the Department will look at how it will give effect to the spirit of the Bill's regulations and consult on same. <BR /> <BR />I imagine that I am not the only Member who received an email earlier today from one employer organisation expressing some concern about the implications of the Bill.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would it be in order for you to commission from your office a review of how often the petition of concern has been deployed down the years and by whom? I believe that Mr Allister is wrong to suggest that the Ulster Unionist Party has deployed it on multiple occasions.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I understand him to be a man of principle. Will he tell me which minority or single identity group is impacted by the Bill in a manner that makes a POC legitimate?”
“I am not giving way, because I want to honour the Speaker, who is very good, by the way. <BR /> <BR />That is where I want the debate to go. It is not about sectors but about a new single education system.”
“We then map out what, we think, would be the ideal school estate for Northern Ireland for the next 20, 30 or 40 years. Finally, we take what we have got and what we want and map out how we get from A to B in affordable steps. We do the same with the health service. That is what I would like us to do and what, I hope, the independent review of education will do. Mr Sheehan said that we may have to wait years for that. I am told, however, that the timeline for reporting is 18 months and the panel is nearly six months in, so we are talking about waiting a year.”
“I think that we will all agree that the answer is yes. We will then have a debate about why we want schools: that would be a debate, because there are different views.”
“I thank the Member for his brevity. The purpose of a petition of concern is to protect a minority or a single identity. The deployment of the petition of concern against this Bill would be a misuse. That is not just my view: the chief commissioner of the Human Rights Commission has made that clear. I believe in power-sharing and in consociational government, and that means that you accept the will of the House. I think that the House is wrong, but I accept its will. <BR /> <BR />I want to finish with this, because it is about taking the bigger view. I think it was Mr McCrossan who brought this to mind. I think that what we need to do with education and with the health service is to clear our minds, take a blank map of Northern Ireland and ask ourselves the question: do we want schools?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Did I not mention how much I admire you for doing five days in a row?”
“I will also say to that party that it was its leader at the time who persuaded me that it was a good idea to reduce the number of MLAs from 108 to 90 because it would be cost-effective and would lead to more efficient government. He said that there was nothing to worry about because all the big parties would lose out proportionately. We would just go smoothly from 108 to 90 Members. Sinn Féin lost one MLA, and the SDLP lost none, but unionism lost 16 MLAs. If there were 16 more unionist votes in the Chamber today, there would not be a problem.”
“I thank the Member for her intervention. All I can say is that I have been approached by many principals who are concerned about the implications of the Bill. I have found them to be absolutely articulate and straight-talking. I note that the Bill sponsor is saying that what they say in public is not what they say in private. That kind of two-faced Janus accusation is from her and not from me. I have found them to be totally straight in their dealings. <BR /> <BR />I want to deal with the petition of concern. One Member said that Members who do not support it might be deemed to be lacking backbone. I am taking no lessons from the party to my left, which has consistently abused the petition of concern for its own interests. For that party, I have two words: Nelson McCausland.”
“I will give way in one second. <BR /> <BR />It seems to me deeply ironic that the Bill sponsor, who I accept is motivated by trying to bring people together, has effectively split them.”
“which Mrs Dodds referred to, was rejected. Whether true or false, those are incredibly damaging perceptions.”
“Whether it is perception or fact, they say that the EA called the Bill "ill-timed and unhelpful". They point out that the amendment that:”
“Well, it is not in the Bill's EFM, and you have lost the support of those bodies. I do not believe for one moment that Gerry Campbell, Mark Baker, Nuala O'Neill, Fintan Murphy or Rosemary Rainey do not want the best possible education for every child in this country, yet they are dead set against your Bill. Whether it is perception or fact, they talk about the fact that the Department told the Committee that integrated education:”
“How can you get to this stage and yet have lost the support of so many key stakeholders? I say "lost the support", but maybe you never had their support in the first place. It does not appear that you consulted them. It is not in the Bill's EFM. I will give way if you wish.”
“Something may not be factually true, but, if people believe that it is true, we have a problem, and that is why the Bill has a problem. The part about consultation in the explanatory and financial memorandum mentions online surveys for adults and school-age children, discussions with educationalists and academics from local universities and a letter to the Minister of Education and the Committee for Education, but there is no mention of the governing bodies. <BR /> <BR />Mr Beattie referred to the open letter of 2 March that records the opposition to the Bill from the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools, the Controlled Schools' Support Council, the Governing Bodies Association Northern Ireland, the Catholic Schools' Trustee Service and the Transferor Representatives' Council.”
“A representative of another party surprised me by saying that they were pretty much in favour of all this, although the motivation struck me as potentially questionable, because it seemed to me that that party was in some sort of power struggle with a particular denominational church over control of their young people. However, motivation and outcome are two different things, and maybe, if you are getting the outcome that you want, you can live with the fact that you are not that happy with the motivation. <BR /> <BR />There has been a lot of talk during the debate about what is and is not in the Bill. In this country, during my whole adult life, we have recognised the importance of perception along with fact.”
“I will not go further, because all the meetings were under the Chatham House Rule; in other words, I cannot reveal with whom or where the meetings took place. However, I can discuss what was said. <BR /> <BR />There was, to me, a really surprising level of agreement amongst all five parties that this was the way to go: integrated towards a single system. For example, one contributor said that they absolutely wanted their children brought up to believe in God and with a specific set of religious tenets, but they went on to say, "But that is up to me, my spouse, my family and my church. It is not up to the school to deliver that. That is on me".”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. The point stands alone, but it is not the thrust of my argument. <BR /> <BR />Some years ago — maybe four or five years ago — I was involved, along with representatives of all five of the main parties, in discussions with people who were keen to see the development of the integrated sector.”
“I think that it was Mr O'Toole who said that it was not unreasonable to look to grow a sector that represents 7% of the whole. However, my aim is not to rebalance the sectors; it is to do away with the sectors and bring in a single education system that takes the best of all the sectors and puts them together in something new and better.”
“That is absolutely not what I want to see, and it is not what my party supports. As I said in an intervention to Mr Sheehan, we want a single education system. That is not the same as supporting one sector over any other. <BR /> <BR />At the creation of Northern Ireland in 1921, the first Minister of Education, Lord Londonderry, wanted a single education system. Every Ulster Unionist Education Minister up to the last one, Basil McIvor, the Minister of Education in the Sunningdale power-sharing Executive in 1973, wanted a single system. If the electorate ever give us the votes that allow us to take the Department of Education again, we will again promote a single education system. <BR /> <BR />One of the problems that I have with the debate that we are having is that we are talking about a sector.”
“The important thing is not the sign over the front door; it is the children walking in and out of that door. Yet, effectively, we are having a debate about labels. <BR /> <BR />The second thing that the Bill sponsor said that struck me was:”
“I appreciate the clarification from the Member, but my point remains. <BR /> <BR />Effectively, we are debating what sign we put over the entrance to a school. Why are we not focusing on the boys and girls who are walking in and out of the front door? Inside every child, with no exception, there is a spark of ability, creativity and talent. It is the role of schools, parents and the House to create environments where every child can find out where that spark is and what it represents. It might be academic, vocational, artistic or sporting. I will not expand on that, but I encourage Members who have not studied the thinking of the late Professor Sir Ken Robinson to have a look at some of his writings or, indeed, to go online and look at some of his excellent posts about creativity.”
“And so it goes on. <BR /> <BR />The last conversation that I had with the senior leadership team at Movilla High School was about how we are progressing UNICEF's Rights Respecting Schools Award. Is it really a stand-alone concept when Movilla High School and so many other schools in the controlled sector are doing it? The point has been made that the controlled sector and CCMS would argue that they deliver integrated education in an organic manner.”
“That also sounds like Movilla. The clause continues that integrated education is for:”
“That sounds like Movilla to me. It continues that such education is for:”
“I will give way in a moment. Clause 1(1) defines integrated education as:”
“I am very proud to have been part of the battle against a suggestion from the EA some years ago that the school should close, because it seemed to me that Newtownards, which I think is the seventh-largest town in Northern Ireland, according to the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA), had to offer a non-selective, post-primary school to the parents and children of that large town. Since then, the school has absolutely blossomed. <BR /> <BR />I listened carefully to the Bill sponsor's opening remarks. If I heard her right, she said that integrated education is a "stand-alone concept", which encouraged me to go back to the Bill and to clause 1, which is headed, "Meaning of 'integrated education'" —”
“He actually did it, I think, in 2012, about 10 years ago. <BR /> <BR />Let us be in no doubt about this: this is not tedious, mundane debate. This is a very significant Bill that we are debating. This is the first time that I have risen to speak on the Bill. I will begin by declaring an interest as the chair of the board of governors of Movilla High School, and I will explain in a moment why that is important. Movilla is a post-primary, non-selective school, and it is the only one in Newtownards offering education to 11- to 16-year-olds.”
“Mr Speaker, thank you. Can I begin by commending you for your endurance? I am aware that you were in that Chair on Friday for the Women's Parliament and that you were back on Saturday for the Youth Assembly, so this is the fifth day out of six. That is quite some going. <BR /> <BR />Senator George Mitchell, who chaired the talks back in 1998 that led to these doors being opened to us, said towards the end that he wanted to come back some day with his son, Andrew, who was born towards the end of the negotiations, and for the two of them to sit up in the Gallery and listen to a tedious debate as Members went through the day-to-day grind of government to the point where young Andrew would say to him, "Dad, I'm bored. Can we go, please?" That was a measure of what would be the success of devolution.”
“I appreciate the Chair of the Committee's giving way on that point. I want to assure him that there is a very good, legitimate reason why Mr Butler is not in the Chamber.”
“I appreciate Mr Sheehan's indulgence. The Ulster Unionist Party has been waiting for 101 years for a single education system. We have the patience to wait.”
“I thank Mr Sheehan for giving way. He said that he has not heard an alternative. What about waiting for the report and the recommendations from the independent review of education?”
“and report to the Assembly within two years of the legislation receiving Royal Assent. That is sensible, as it acknowledges the ever-changing nature of the defamation environment. It is also sensible given what may or may not happen after 5 May. I have changed the time limits, as the Deputy Chair pointed out. That was done after negotiations on the commencement provisions. The Deputy Chair pointed out that amendment No 15 changes the time limits for the commencement. Those timescales were negotiated recently with departmental officials and, while they are not without challenge, they are realistic and there was no particular objection from departmental officials to amendment No 15. <BR /> <BR />I shall leave it at that. Once again, I thank all Members and the Minister for their attention.”
“As the Member is aware, because the point has been made in the debate, very few defamation cases are going to jury trial at the moment. Mr Allister himself made the point that both plaintiff and defendant can say, "I would rather have the trial conducted by a judge only". I think that the provision in clause 11 is a much cleaner, efficient and potentially cost-effective way of dealing with the issues. It seems almost perverse to say, "We won't decide on the meaning of the words until the end of the trial". Let us get it done upfront and move on. <BR /> <BR />I will not delay the House for much longer than another minute. The rest of the clauses are basically technical, but my amendment No 7 places a new duty on the Department of Finance to:”
“Professor Scott is saying that, if you go for a judge-only trial, the evidence is that, because the judge does not have to give the jury its place, he or she can simply say, right up front, "I think that those words mean x", and the statement, therefore, is either defamatory or not. That is a much more efficient way of dispatching a defamatory action, particularly if we are thinking about new pretrial protocols and alternative dispute resolutions. <BR /> <BR />Before I give way to Mr Allister, let me finish with Professor Scott's conclusion:”
“To be clear, if one of us goes to the High Court with a defamation claim, because there is a jury, the judge will decide only whether the statement is capable of being interpreted as defamatory. If the statement is perverse, he or she can throw the case out, but if it is capable of being interpreted as defamatory, the trial will go ahead and the jury will decide. I am sure that we have all said things, possibly even in the House, and have felt that we have known exactly what we meant, only to discover that someone else had a different interpretation. That is key to the whole issue of defamation. At the end, you have to have a single meaning. Currently, it is the jury that says, at the end of the trial, "Those words mean x, not y". It decides whether the plaintiff or the defendant is right.”
“His headline was "Highly beneficial consequences", and he said that the move allowed:”
“There is, potentially, Mr Allister, if you run out of the one-year time limit. Yes, there is. <BR /> <BR />I will move on to the last substantial comment that I have to make, which is on clause 11. Jury trials in civil law are rare, as I understand it. They certainly are not available in England, Scotland and Wales, and there is every possibility that they will soon not be available in the jurisdiction of the Government of Ireland if Minister Helen McEntee's recommendations are accepted. <BR /> <BR />I will return to the evidence of Professor Scott. I remind Members that he was commissioned by the Department of Finance, back in the day, to look after the consultation and write the report. In his written evidence to the Committee on 29 October 2021, the first thing that he tackled was the move to judge-only trials.”
“They would be a publisher, would they not? They would have chosen to reprint and to republish the defamatory comment. That is my interpretation of clause 10.”
“Print newspapers are struggling because of the internet, and people are reading more books online, on Kindles and on other devices than they are buying hard copies from shops. I am a printer, and I am struggling to get business. I am struggling to get people to ask me to print their publication. However, somebody comes to me from a university and says, "I'm a scientist. Here's a 1,000-page book. Would you please print it?". Do I have to get a scientific expert to read every word of those 1,000 pages so that he can say, "On page 732, paragraph five, there's something that's potentially defamatory"? What is the additional cost of that to my printing house? All that I am saying in clause 10 is that the person deliberately disseminating that defamatory statement would be an author, an editor or a publisher.”
“<BR /> <BR />I will return to libel tourism. I accept that there is no evidence that libel tourism has occurred or is occurring in Northern Ireland. However, I want to plant the thought that, if we do not go with clause 11 on jury trials, and we, potentially, become the only jurisdiction on the two islands that retains the presumption of a jury trial, that might make a difference to what happens in regard to libel tourism. <BR /> <BR />I note those who are opposed to clause 10, which deals with the definitions of "author", "editor" and "publisher". Clause 10 is intended to offer protection to those who are involved in the dissemination of information but who do not meet any of those definitions. Say, for example, I run a printing firm, and I am struggling.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention, but I do not accept his premise. The fact that the person is unknown is the issue. I am saying that we are not the courts: we do not enforce the law; we make the law. I propose that we make a new law that would make it a criminal offence for the operator of a website not to identify the individual. I propose that we put a legal onus on the operator, be that Twitter, Facebook or whatever. We say to the operator, "If you receive a complaint from me" — say, about the tweet that I just mentioned — "you must identify that individual to me so that I can brief my lawyer, and we can proceed with defamation in the High Court. If, for whatever reason, you do not, I will come after you". The difficulty is the legal enforcement. That is not a matter for us. We legislate; we do not enforce.”
“The bottom line is that we legislate, we do not enforce, and the problem is more on the enforcement side than on the legislative side of the House. I will leave it there on clause 5. I will join the Committee and the House in voting against the clause. <BR /> <BR />Clause 6 is on peer reviews, clause 7 makes technical changes to reporting, and clause 8 tidies up the law regarding repetition of a defamatory statement. I understand that some Members do not accept that. <BR /> <BR />Clause 9 deals with libel tourism, and the amendment simply tidies up an error that left us in the European Union, which is clearly not the case. I accept that there is currently no —”
“I would suggest to the House that that is defamatory. <BR /> <BR />Just out of interest, I sent that tweet to a media lawyer. Client confidentiality restricts me from telling you who it was, but you may wonder whether the individual media lawyer has already been named in this debate. The key point of his written response was this: if you can identify him, it may be worth considering — if you can identify him. Yet Mr McHugh quoted Paul Tweed as saying that clause 5 was totally unworkable. The intent was to identify the person who was responsible for the tweet. My lawyer said that, if I could identify him, it may be worth considering. <BR /> <BR />I accept, however, that clause 5 is gone. I also accept Mr Muir's comment that online safety is a much broader issue than online defamation. It is complex.”
“He compared me with a loyalist gunrunner and then went on to say of me:”
“This is the response that I got from the individual:”
“The other has no idea who posted quite outrageous and, frankly, sickening comments about her and her husband and family. She cannot identify the person who posted. That is what I was trying to achieve in clause 5. What I was saying was that, if you see a post and you cannot identify the author, you go to the website operator and say, "Identify that person". By "identify", I mean identify in a way that I can get them into the High Court and sue them. If you do not, because you do not want to or you cannot, I am coming after you as the operator of the website". <BR /> <BR />I want to give you another example. A couple of weeks ago, I posted a tweet about some victims. I will not name one of the respondents because I will not give them the oxygen of publicity, but they may be a man, because their photograph is of a man.”
“At Second Stage, I said that I would not die in a ditch, that I had no red lines and that I was open to persuasion on every clause in the Bill, and I have listened to the Committee and to Members in the House today. I do not necessarily agree, but I accept that I have not made my case, so I will vote with the Committee against clause 5. <BR /> <BR />I would, however, like to say something else. During this mandate, two Members of the House were defamed on social media, both of whom are females, by the way; gender is an issue in this whole piece. One was clearly able to identify the author who posted the defamatory remarks on social media and, quite rightly, went to the High Court and was successful in suing for defamation and receiving compensation.”
“The Deputy Chair of the Committee for Finance advised the House that I had dropped the second half of my amendment to clause 3, which was a defence for any fact that the defendant reasonably believed to be true at the time that the statement was published. I dropped that after consultation with departmental officials and the Office of the Legislative Counsel because they believed that it did not achieve what I was setting out to achieve. On their advice, that part of the amendment has not been tabled. <BR /> <BR />The Secretary of State gave his consent for me to legislate in clause 5 on a reserved matter: telecommunications. I have to accept that I have not succeeded in making my argument.”