David Brooks
East Belfast · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“Does the Member accept that our position, as it has been laid out and although it is different from hers, is that schools should have autonomy to decide those things? It is not about appointing anyone, least of all men specifically, to make those decisions; it is about school leadership.”
“I recognise that the Member is being genuine, as all Members have been as they have laid out their reasoning, and I have some sympathy with that. However, Northern Ireland is being portrayed almost as an outlier.”
“We have seen some enthusiasm for private Members' Bills introduced by those on the Benches opposite progressing at speed, and I hope to see similar motivation for such a key issue as inspections. In the past — admittedly, when there was less time pressure — the Committee was generous with its time when hearing from stakeholders.”
“I will say a few words rather make a lengthy speech. The Justice Bill is coming up, and I am sure that my colleague Mr Frew will have that covered.”
“I echo the sentiments that racism is always wrong, but one of the pressures that are causing frustration is the lack of social and affordable housing, particularly in our most deprived communities. That has been exacerbated by Mears's operation.”
“I will not take lectures in scripture and Christianity from those who often spend their time opposing Christian values — I have no truck with such lectures. Equally, I say to those who have been involved in the violence that you will not rebuild a Christian nation by torching houses or cars or by attacking the police.”
The complete record
Every one of 817 lines we hold for David Brooks, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 17.
“Does the Member accept that our position, as it has been laid out and although it is different from hers, is that schools should have autonomy to decide those things? It is not about appointing anyone, least of all men specifically, to make those decisions; it is about school leadership. Some school leaders will be men, and some will be women. Our position and how we defend it is that it is about giving schools the autonomy rather than placing control in any one person's hands.”
“I recognise that the Member is being genuine, as all Members have been as they have laid out their reasoning, and I have some sympathy with that. However, Northern Ireland is being portrayed almost as an outlier. Does she accept that such legislation is not present in England or in the Republic of Ireland and that, therefore, we are not an outlier in that respect?”
“In that spirit, I hope that the extension deadline is not a target and that we can progress more quickly than that.”
“We have seen some enthusiasm for private Members' Bills introduced by those on the Benches opposite progressing at speed, and I hope to see similar motivation for such a key issue as inspections. In the past — admittedly, when there was less time pressure — the Committee was generous with its time when hearing from stakeholders. Of course, we wanted to hear the key issues that stakeholders aired and that we reflected on. Quite often, however, the Committee heard from those who were not necessarily changing minds or bringing something new to the conversation; rather, they were reflecting what we had already heard from similar organisations. <BR /> <BR />We should always be willing to ensure that key issues are aired, but we should balance that with the time pressures and the need to get business done.”
“I will say a few words rather make a lengthy speech. The Justice Bill is coming up, and I am sure that my colleague Mr Frew will have that covered. I rise not to oppose the Committee Stage extension but just to place on record my party's view, which the Chair has reflected, that the deadline should not be a target but that we should work to progress the Bill efficiently and get the legislation through. <BR /> <BR />Whilst we will have differences of opinion on some aspects of the Bill, I think that all will agree that inspections are key to ensuring the quality of our education system in supporting schools, identifying key needs and having a key role in safeguarding students. Therefore, I do not want to see any undue delay to the Bill.”
“The list of actions that the Minister has given shows his commitment to reducing workload. How will the roll-out of TransformED assist in that?”
“I echo the sentiments that racism is always wrong, but one of the pressures that are causing frustration is the lack of social and affordable housing, particularly in our most deprived communities. That has been exacerbated by Mears's operation. Sinn Féin has been vocal in criticising the Irish Government for their housing policy, yet the Northern Ireland Communities Minister has repeatedly made it clear that the Finance Minister has not even given him the funding for housing to meet the Programme for Government (PFG) targets. Why is it always one rule for Sinn Féin in the South and another for Sinn Féin in Northern Ireland? Will the First Minister urgently ensure that funding for housing is prioritised?”
“The Minister said that the candidates were presented to her for selection. Were the candidates presented to her in rank order? If so, which specific skills, expertise and experience did Peter Lynch display that made him particularly appointable?”
“Where is your honesty? You talk about honesty. Where is it?”
“Not the amendment. Disingenuous. Where is the honesty that you mentioned?”
“— that will no doubt be the first of many court cases. Our net zero targets are hampering the A5 project, and they will hamper the York Street interchange scheme. Experts say that they will affect pretty much every major road project that is proposed for this place. Is he willing to continue to risk lives and economic benefits, or will we see some common sense prevail on the issue?”
“I have said before that the way to fuel racist and far right sentiment is to continue down the path of ignoring working-class communities, which carry more than their fair share of the load in that regard, making them feel unheard and gaslighting them into believing that what they see with their own eyes is not true. <BR /> <BR />I thank the emergency services that were present in east Belfast last week, particularly in Lendrick Street and McMaster Street. I give voice to some of the residents there, who are sick of the attention that they have been getting from journalists and YouTubers, and —”
“I hope to see that family back in Ballybeen soon. <BR /> <BR />In condemning all the violence, let me say that there are Members from across the Chamber who want to use this event to quieten or shut down debate on immigration and to silence those of us who wish to speak up for our communities. That will not happen. In the Chamber last week, those Members told us, for the first time, that they are up for conversations on immigration. They said that they recognised the issues and the fact that there are voices to be heard; yet it took a night of trouble on the streets for them to go back to calling pretty much everyone who has concerns about immigration racist and far right.”
“I will not take lectures in scripture and Christianity from those who often spend their time opposing Christian values — I have no truck with such lectures. Equally, I say to those who have been involved in the violence that you will not rebuild a Christian nation by torching houses or cars or by attacking the police. The only way to build a Christian nation is by following Christ. You can call whatever it is that you seek to build what you will, but do not call it "Christian". A more Christian example was present in the Ballybeen estate, where the community rallied round a well-liked Romanian family who were forced from their home and raised money. That family has had to return home to Romania, but the community has reached out to make it clear that it wants them back and has received thanks from the family for that.”
“I join my colleague Mr Brett in saying, without hesitation, that violence is wrong. Our party has always said that. Attacking the police, who have nothing to do with the grievances expressed, is wrong. Burning buses and cars is wrong. Forcing families from their homes is wrong: it is wrong whenever those people are foreign nationals, and it is wrong whenever they are from the local community; sadly, in east Belfast, we had both. People were losing their homes: for what cause? Violence on our streets is wrong, and, unlike some in the Chamber, I have always said so. <BR /> <BR />I believe that problematic foreign cultures are present in Northern Ireland. Whenever we have that discussion, it is often juxtaposed with Christianity and the idea of this being a Christian nation with some aspiring for it to be more so.”
“The Department should look to putting a framework in place that asks the following questions. What should the age limits be? How should those vehicles be allowed to operate? What safety equipment should be required, and what standards of training and insurance should be necessary? Those are important questions, and they, too, deserve answers. <BR /> <BR />Today, however, we are dealing with the more immediate issue. The amendment would provide the PSNI with a more effective tool to tackle behaviour that is already illegal and already causing harm in our communities. For that reason, I am pleased to support it. I thank my colleague for tabling it, and I encourage Members to support it.”
“At the same time, when enforcement is lax, it is hardly surprising that such use has become normalised. People see others using those vehicles every day without consequence and, understandably, conclude that the rules are not being enforced. <BR /> <BR />That brings me to a final point, again slightly outside the scope of today's Bill: it is long since time that the Department for Infrastructure engaged seriously on the issue. The current approach of effectively doing nothing may save that Department from immediate hassle, but it does not serve everyone well. It does not serve well those who wish to use the vehicles legitimately for short commutes and sustainable travel, nor does it serve pedestrians, families and vulnerable road users, who have to contend with the dangers created by unregulated and unlawful use.”
“<BR /> <BR />Returning to the amendment and those on whom it may impact, I recognise that some become frustrated when the issue is discussed — e-scooters, in particular — and sometimes feel that e-scooters are demonised and that they do not always act irresponsibly. Many people purchase e-scooters because they see them as a practical means of transport. They want to use an affordable way to travel to and from work, or they want that solution for short journeys. My colleague talked about sustainable travel, which we have often encouraged and what is often referred to as "the last mile" of their commute. I understand that perspective, but the reality is that, under the current law, the use of privately owned e-scooters on public roads and footpaths is illegal. That is the legal position.”
“They communicated that officers in GB have benefited from the enactment of sections 5 and 6 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. In practice, that means that, instead of an investigation being judged against the driving of a careful and competent driver, they are more recently judged against that of a careful constable who has undertaken the same prescribed training, which better takes into account their level of training and the context in which they are asked to protect the public good. While that is not directly relevant — I understand that the Deputy Speaker may be indulging me in that regard — I encourage the Minister to look into that.”
“I certainly recognise that in my constituency. Not only do I recognise it in my constituency, but police officers routinely talk to me about it. It is not even that they have to think too much about it: it is fundamentally so dangerous not only for the person on the bike but for other users of the paths or greenways or roads that the police are not able to give chase in that way. In a minority of circumstances, they will have been able to chase the perpetrator, but, too often, that is not the case. They also speak about wanting to see mandatory registration at the point of sale. <BR /> <BR />I come to something else that the Member was talking about. A police officer who had experience working in England contacted me recently.”
“<BR /> <BR />Alongside stronger powers, we need better operational capability. While I will not go deeply into that, the Minister will have heard me speak about the need for drone teams and for those drones to be accessible to police officers when they are needed rather than having to be booked in advance. I understand that that requires additional resource. However, it is necessary, given the problems that we have seen on the greenway and in other places where police do not currently have the ability to give chase.”
“This is not the time to debate it more fully, but we do need to look at powers to go further when dealing with repeat offenders and serious misuse. That will probably require stand-alone legislation. At present, in many cases, an individual whose vehicle has been confiscated can pay a relatively modest fee and recover it. For some, that has become little more than an inconvenience rather than a deterrent. That cannot be right. We should consider powers that allow for the permanent deprivation of a vehicle where an individual has been responsible for the dangerous, reckless or persistent misuse of that vehicle. There is strong public interest in ensuring that, if someone demonstrates repeatedly that they cannot use a vehicle responsibly, they simply do not have it handed back to them a short period later.”
“At a time when it seems as though the odds are stacked too heavily in favour of the perpetrators, where we have seen them actively goad PSNI officers, every little helps to rebalance the scales in favour of our police force. That is a practical step in the right direction. If a vehicle is being used illegally and dangerously, common sense suggests that officers should be able to act there and then. A system that requires warnings before action can be taken risks allowing offenders to evade consequences and undermines confidence in enforcement. Therefore, I support that amendment wholeheartedly. <BR /> <BR />While supporting it, however, we must also be honest and acknowledge that it is only a step in the right direction. I know that the proposer knows that. The scale of the problem requires us to think more broadly and ambitiously.”
“The greenway — much lauded as a success in our constituency — has been described to me by police and community representatives as a "highway" for such supplies, where those who use the vehicles are secure in the knowledge that the police lack the powers and abilities to chase them effectively, particularly on the greenways. <BR /> <BR />The amendment is not revolutionary. It does not create new offences or introduce sweeping new powers. It removes an unnecessary obstacle to effective enforcement by allowing the PSNI to seize the vehicles immediately where legal grounds exist, rather than having to first issue a warning.”
“For too long, residents have had to endure those vehicles being driven recklessly through housing estates, down greenways and in parks and public spaces. Parents worry about children playing outside. Elderly residents fear using footpaths. People who are simply trying to walk to the shops or enjoy a local park should not have to dodge vehicles being ridden in a manner that is dangerous, intimidating and, in many cases, completely unlawful. <BR /> <BR />That is before we take into account, as, I am sure, the Justice Minister is well aware, that it is not merely a matter of antisocial behaviour or kids larking about. In our constituency is concerned, those vehicles are used in the supply of drugs.”
“Indeed, while I and some others have been talking about it for a while, we can see, through social media videos, the 'Peelers: The PSNI for Real' TV show and, no doubt, increasing issues in constituency offices, that the dangerous and antisocial misuse of e-scooters and scramblers is now a matter that few of us do not deal with regularly. <BR /> <BR />I congratulate the PSNI in north Belfast on its recent haul of Sur-Ron e-scramblers, which I saw on its Facebook page. I know that their east Belfast colleagues have had a number of successes on that front recently too. I hope that we see many more such posts. I wish them every success in their efforts. However, I also know that they operate within a system that often seems to put barriers in their way rather than enabling them to act.”
“I thank the Minister for the clarification that she granted in response to my intervention in my colleague's speech earlier. For all those reasons, I commend both those amendments to the House. <BR /> <BR />I will move on to an issue that has been hugely prevalent and a torment to residents, community workers and, indeed, police in my constituency, and it has been a focus of my work over the past months and, indeed, couple of years: the misuse of scramblers and e-scooters. I welcome the amendment that would allow police to confiscate those scooters and scramblers without warning, and I commend my colleague Paul Frew and Members from other parties, Patsy and Nuala, whom he worked with to bring it forward. It is a sensible and necessary measure that addresses a real problem that communities across Northern Ireland experience daily.”
“Although amendment Nos 74 and 75 would not eliminate drug-driving overnight, they represent a sensible, evidence-based step that would improve enforcement, strengthen deterrence and ultimately save lives.”
“The law should not rely on chance, discretion or inconsistency when the stakes are so high. The amendment is not about being anti-driver. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of drivers would feel safer on our roads as a result of its being made. Rather, it is anti-drug misuse and pro-road safety. The measures are about protecting innocent road users, pedestrians, cyclists and passengers and about giving our police the tools that they need. They are about ensuring that enforcement provides sufficient deterrence and accountability and that, when serious incidents occur, the truth can be established quickly and fairly. Every Member wants safer roads. Every Member wants fewer families to receive devastating news from the police at their front door.”
“Calls for such a law emerged following the tragic death of Jaidyn Rice and the subsequent campaign by her family for the introduction of tougher road safety measures. I commend that family for their campaign, and I commend my colleagues Stephen Dunne and the Chair of the Justice Committee for working on the amendment. The principle is very clear: when serious collisions occur, particularly those that involve death or serious injury, there should be mandatory testing of drivers so that evidence is gathered immediately, thus enabling families to have confidence that no question has been left unanswered. <BR /> <BR />The relevance of Jaidyn's law to amendment No 75 is clear. Both are founded on the belief that, where the consequences are grave, testing should be automatic rather than optional.”
“Other jurisdictions in the United Kingdom have significantly strengthened their approach to drug-driving. Police officers now routinely use roadside saliva-testing devices, and drug-driving laws were specifically reformed to make enforcement more effective. The objective was simple: to bring drug-driving enforcement closer to the model that has proven successful in tackling drink-driving. The result has been a clearer framework for police and a stronger deterrent for motorists. <BR /> <BR />Members will be familiar, not least through the contributions from my colleagues, particularly Stephen Dunne, about what has become known as Jaidyn's law, which we hope amendment No 75 will bring into effect.”
“The amendment would remove that discretion and require testing in those circumstances, which is entirely reasonable. If a driver is suspected of reckless driving, there is a legitimate public interest in establishing whether drugs were a factor. If a collision occurs in which someone has been injured or killed, families deserve to know that every possible line of enquiry has been pursued. Mandatory testing in such circumstances would protect the integrity of investigations, ensure consistency of enforcement and remove any perception that testing might vary from one officer or one area to another. It would also protect police officers by providing them with a clear statutory requirement rather than leaving it up to them to make difficult judgement calls in what can be highly stressful situations.”
“We hope that the measures in the amendments will lead to fewer such situations in future. Amendment No 74 would address that imbalance by providing our police officers with a straightforward screening tool at checkpoints, thus sending a clear message that drug-driving is every bit as unacceptable as drink-driving and, in future, will be just as likely to be detected and punished. It is about giving the police the ability to identify, before tragedy occurs, those who may be driving under the influence of illegal or impairing substances. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 75 is equally important. As has been stated, at present, when a driver is stopped for reckless or dangerous driving or has been involved in a collision causing injury or death, a degree of discretion remains as to whether a drug test is administered.”
“For decades, society at large has recognised that alcohol impairs judgement, slows reaction times and puts lives at risk. Many of us will remember the startling and impactful adverts over the years. I remember them even from my childhood. There was a shift in culture as people realised the dangers that drink-driving — driving under the influence of an alcoholic substance — posed not only to the driver but to communities, pedestrians and other innocent road users. <BR /> <BR />That recognition and cultural change has been backed up by robust roadside enforcement. Drugs can be equally dangerous, however, and, in some cases, even more so, yet our enforcement powers have not always kept pace. My colleague's story about his relative will have touched many across the Chamber.”
“Like many of those who have spoken before me, I will first speak to amendments Nos 74 and 75, and then I will turn to amendment No 90 that my colleague Mr Frew worked cross-party to draft, and which will increase the powers to confiscate e-scooters and scramblers, which is particularly relevant to my constituency. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 74 and 75 are practical, proportionate and potentially life-saving measures that are designed to tackle the growing threat of drug-driving on our roads. Amendment No 74 would allow a constable on duty at an authorised checkpoint to require a driver to cooperate with a roadside drugs test through providing a saliva sample. As has been said, that, in essence, places drug-driving testing on a similar footing to the breath tests that have become a routine and accepted part of drink-driving enforcement.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Having just listened to the Minister's contribution, I understand that one reason why we have a legal limit for alcohol is that alcohol is a legal substance. There are prescription drugs and so on, but should it not be the case with illegal drugs that any amount detected should be treated as illegal and therefore prosecutable?”
“Thank you, Minister. I do not know whether I can help with that, but I am curious about this: if the Members opposite believe that agreement to proceed is not agreement, why does the Minister believe that they are holding up the 16-to-18 legislation?”
“I am not saying that the Member would generally do that, and we can all be influenced by that, particularly in the run-up to an election, but I encourage the Member — all Members — to look at what is actually proposed in the Bill. She does not seem to be opposed to what we are talking about in principle, but she is right that there is misinformation out there and that people are being whipped up by whatever means and by whomever. I encourage her to take a stand and explain to people what is actually proposed and that nobody is out to get teachers. There is no interest for any of us in going after teachers. Everyone wants a good education system, and that would not be possible without our excellent teachers.”
“I understand. We all get emails, and I suggest that, on many issues, the reason for such emails is to try to influence the way in which we will vote. Last week, it was the Hunting with Dogs Bill, and, this week, it is this Bill. There is a job for us to do to understand what the legislation does and to raise some of the issues. We have the job of leading and explaining what the Bill actually does to those who get in touch with us, rather than being led simply by the fact that we have received x number of emails, all of which say the same thing, and just adopting that position. That does not make for good legislating.”
“It has a lot to do with the Members over there.”
“I know what the Member means, but we have to be clear about the sanctioning of teachers. What any sanction would be is to be decided, but it would not be out of line with, and would probably be more moderated than, what happens in other professions. It would be imposed in response to one thing only, and that is refusal to engage with inspections that, we all agree, are vital to the system. In the discussion, it is almost as though people are actively seeking to sanction teachers, but, as has been said, we are looking at taking one element — inspections — out of the toolbox of action short of strike. The Bill does not outlaw action short of strike; it does not outlaw strike action. It is about one limited element, and it seems a strange thing to go into the trenches for.”
“If they are that vital to the system, we should defend them, and defending them includes saying, "Look, there are a number of options to take industrial action and to express your grievances, but inspections should not be one of those levers".”
“There is no point making that argument if you are not willing to have some kind of deterrent. We can argue about what that is. Those on the Benches opposite want to make out to teachers that the prison vans are coming to take them away, which is utter nonsense. Some kind of sanction for not engaging with inspections is not unreasonable. We can talk about the nature of that sanction, and the Chair of the Education Committee has made it clear that he will engage with that in Committee. It is entirely reasonable for not engaging with something as important as inspections. The bizarre thing is that everybody around the Chamber continues to emphasise how important, they believe, inspections are. Put your money where your mouth is.”
“We are asking for one element — inspections in our schools — so that we have quality assurance and safeguarding. I ask the Member to reconsider the issue. I really do not understand and cannot get my head around how people are landing on voting this down as being an issue worth fighting for.”
“Will the Member accept that our nursing workforce and our care workers face huge pressures as well? They work in systems that are not funded enough, and they are not paid enough. There are huge issues in those systems as well, but we would not stand in this place and argue that one of the solutions to that is to allow them to not engage with inspections, with regulators or things of a similar principle. I have to say that I am surprised by the stance that the Member has taken, because, when the issue is looked at rationally, that does not make sense. Why would we stop inspections in our schools? I have heard nobody here argue against the right of teachers to take industrial action, the right to strike and all of those things. Those levers will still be available.”
“<BR /> <BR />I agree with one element of Alliance's approach, which is to take the Bill to Committee, look at it and amend what you do not agree with, but, given what we are discussing and its importance to our education system, the idea that the context is too tense at the moment and relations are just not good is not a strong enough argument to compromise on something as important as inspections. Let me say very clearly that I stand against the right to hold inspection of schools as a tactical tool. I stand for accountability, for children and for quality education, and it follows that I will support the Bill. I encourage other Members to do likewise.”
“The Minister has been building trust with the profession and has done so over the course of his term. <BR /> <BR />The question here is whether we are truly taking a child-centred approach. Do we think that inspections highlight the quality of education, share best practice and reveal the issues with facilities that I mentioned? Do they shine a light on the challenges and the conditions in which teachers work and children are taught? Do they pick up safeguarding issues too? If so, do we believe that they should be optional? Is one additional element of trade union tactical leverage more important than the oversight that protects our children and assists our schools? That is what is being argued today.”
“Listen, I have outlined the way in which the Minister is working to address the workload issues, but, in my speech, using the example of Dundonald High School in my constituency, I have also shown how inspections help to get attention for some of the issues that teachers and schools have with the facilities that they use and the challenges that they face in their school. Inspections are positive things that assure our education system. That helps teachers as well as children. There will always be tension between the Department and the workforce — that is not unusual — but the Minister is working hard to help with the workload and build relationships with teachers. He has done remarkable work in previous industrial disputes in meeting teachers' demands. That is self-evident.”
“Frankly, we should all be able to agree on that, and I despair that we cannot.”
“I am sorry, but other jurisdictions also saw strikes, so the point is null. <BR /> <BR />I hear the concerns about workload issues, as does the Minister. That is why he has commissioned and published an action plan. That is why he has brought forward the TransformED programme, delivering reforms to reduce bureaucracy and support teachers. However, placing workload and inspection as somehow mutually exclusive adversaries is neither rational nor reasonable. As I have outlined, inspection has a role in further evidencing and validating some of the challenges that school staff and pupils face. The Bill will give reassurance that future disputes will not have elements that compromise the safety and education of children by virtue of their being pawns in those negotiations.”