Phillip Brett
North Belfast · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“Paula has been a diligent Chair who has championed the interests of victims and survivors. I personally thank her for her work on the Bill. I pay tribute to Committee members, who also dedicated their time to the Bill, and to our Committee staff.”
“At the outset, I pay tribute to the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone for her heartfelt and valuable contribution. As you rightly said, Mr Deputy Speaker, her family will be very proud of the contribution that she has just made. <BR /> <BR />Today marks a truly significant moment.”
“<BR /> <BR />I am therefore delighted to report to the House that a U-turn has been secured. This year, the Twelfth has been promoted through Discover Northern Ireland's social media channels.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Bill will establish a statutory public inquiry alongside a redress scheme, both of which are important. Their establishment recognises that there is a responsibility not only to uncover truth but to acknowledge the profound harm that was caused.”
“I warmly welcome the progress that has been achieved in the promotion of the Twelfth of July and our wider Orange and Ulster-Scots traditions by Tourism Northern Ireland.”
“<BR /> <BR />Today's debate is not about rewriting history but about confronting history honestly. It is about recognising that vulnerable women and children were failed by institutions, by society and by the state.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,333 lines we hold for Phillip Brett, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 27.
“They are not reasons to reject the principle of the Bill; they are reasons to improve the Bill. Second Stage is about principle. The principle before us is whether Northern Ireland should continue to allow wild animals to be hunted with dogs for sport. I believe that the answer to that question is no. <BR /> <BR />I recognise that some people will see this debate as a clash between urban and rural life, but it should not be framed that way. Many people in rural communities care deeply about animal welfare, many farmers have a profound respect for animals and the land, and many people who live and work in the countryside have a practical understanding of management, conservation and responsible land stewardship.”
“There are legitimate questions that need to be answered and legitimate concerns that need to be addressed. Mr Frew has very well articulated many of them. We need to ensure that farmers can continue to protect livestock; that humane and necessary pest control can continue where required; that lawful shooting, working dogs and legitimate countryside activity are not caught up in unintended consequences; and that enforcement is practical, proportionate and resourced. Those are not minor matters; they go to the workability of the legislation. They matter to farmers, landowners, dog owners, rural communities, enforcement bodies and animal welfare organisations alike. However, those concerns are exactly why the Bill should proceed to detailed scrutiny.”
“<BR /> <BR />The public expect better. They expect the Assembly to act when cruelty is identified. They expect us not to merely condemn cruelty with words but to legislate where legislation is required. That is why the Bill matters. It matters because it asks us whether we are prepared to draw a clear line and whether we are willing to stand up for animal welfare and ensure that Northern Ireland does not lag behind the rest of the United Kingdom. It matters because it asks whether tradition should be allowed to excuse a practice that, in my view, the majority of the people of Northern Ireland now regard as outdated. <BR /> <BR />However, supporting the principle of the Bill does not mean that the Bill is perfect. It is not. I want to be fair and clear about that.”
“It is not whether we respect the countryside; of course we do. It is not whether farmers have the right to protect livestock; of course they do. It is not whether there are legitimate issues of pest control, conservation and land management; of course there are. The central question is whether the deliberate hunting of wild mammals with dogs for entertainment should continue to be lawful in Northern Ireland. My answer to that question is that it should not. It is morally wrong and is out of step with public expectations, with modern animal welfare standards and with where Northern Ireland should be. For too long, animal welfare here has been behind. We have seen that in debates on puppy farming, enforcement sentencing, rehoming and the ability of people convicted of animal cruelty to own or keep animals in the future.”
“<BR /> <BR />Let me be clear from the outset that I wholeheartedly support the principle of the Bill. I do so because Northern Ireland can no longer be an outlier in the United Kingdom when it comes to the hunting of wild mammals with dogs. We should not be behind England, Wales or Scotland on a basic question of animal welfare. Hunting an animal for fun or defending that practice simply because it is tradition is not acceptable in a modern society. Traditions matter; rural life matters; countryside communities matter; but no tradition is beyond moral scrutiny. Where a practice involves cruelty, suffering or the deliberate pursuit of wild animals for sport, the Assembly has a responsibility, today, to say, "That is wrong". <BR /> <BR />That is the central issue at the heart of the Bill.”
“I warmly welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. It has been an example of the best of the Assembly, with Members passionately arguing for the causes that matter to them and their constituents. I speak as someone who has taken considerable interest in animal welfare and as a member of the Assembly's all-party group on animal welfare. I also do so with a degree of personal reflection. The Member for South Antrim and I do not sit on the same Bench, nor do we always agree, but, in our previous life in local government, we worked together on important animal welfare issues, and I was delighted that he and I were able to ensure the banning from council property of circuses that use wild animals. That was the right thing to do then, and engaging seriously with the Bill is the right thing to do now.”
“I appreciate the Member giving way. He knows more about rural issues than I do, but I am unaware of any supply chain or restaurant that sends out mammals to hunt animals that are then caught, brought to the restaurant and used. Does the Member have examples of those in his constituency?”
“Key Programme for Government targets have not been met as a result of climate change legislation that you, as First Minister, supported. On Saturday, I welcomed your apparent forthcoming U-turn on climate change targets to try to deliver the A5 and other infrastructure projects. Do you now regret voting for targets that you were warned would have detrimental impacts for Northern Ireland?”
“I appreciate that the Member does not have the clarity that the other Member was seeking, but we are voting on legislation, and it is not a matter of, "I think that that is what this does". We are being asked to vote on the law that will govern the process. If the Member is not 100% sure of the impact of his amendment, would it not be best, perhaps, not to move it and then check to see what the actual impact of it is and then allow you, through Further Consideration Stage, to deliver the outcome that Cáral articulated?”
“I appreciate the junior Minister's focus on that point. It was a particular point of deliberation at Committee, because we had listened strongly to the views of victims and survivors. Advice to the Committee from Executive Office officials, however, was clear that no admission-based scheme on this issue anywhere in the world is without a posthumous date. It is important to read that into the record.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. On the point that she was making, does she agree that most of the consultation was not about the amount of money for victims but about recognition, justice and truth and that, for many of the people who came to our Committee, money was a secondary issue?”
“Will the Minister agree that the Committee's amendment No 20, which proposes 21 days, goes further than the Inquiries Act 2005, which governs all public inquiries across the United Kingdom, and that, if we do agree an increase to 21 days, that will ensure that victims and survivors have the most appropriate and, indeed, the most generous time for a judicial review for a public inquiry anywhere in the UK?”
“The Minister recognises that Invest Northern Ireland remains the leader in attracting foreign direct investment to Northern Ireland. Given that, Minister, why have you not responded to my question for written answer of 15 March, in which I asked how many names came forward to you from your officials for appointment to the board of Invest Northern Ireland? Why have you not supplied that figure, when you took the decision to appoint two Sinn Féin members to the board? What have you got to hide?”
“There is no subsection in that to articulate the reason why the evidence did not come forward. That may be wilful withholding by an institution that is, rightly, publicised, but it may be a victim or a survivor who does not want that evidence to be publicised, and they would then be put on the same level as an institution that refused to provide evidence, with individuals' names being published alongside those of institutions. Have you thought about that?”
“Will the Member accept the shortcoming in his amendment, which states:”
“I appreciate the Member's giving way. That point was very well articulated by the Member for North Belfast Ms Ní Chuilín. She sought clear commitments from officials that that would not be the case. That has been included in the Committee report as a result of Carál's work.”
“I thank the Deputy Chair for giving way and also for his dedication during the process. Does he agree that, actually, the insertion of a new clause by amendment No 10 would be the result of a huge amount of work by the Chair, the Deputy Chair and other Committee members, because it was a matter of particular angst for the Committee that there was no mechanism by which institutions that were involved in that process could contribute to recompense for the harm that they caused, and that the Committee tried to push the Executive Office as far as it could to try to deliver that?”
“<BR /> <BR />I do not want to get into political disagreement. The concerns that I have outlined are based not on party political concerns but on a concern that the amendments, although well intentioned, may undermine the process or the integrity of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />I also want to address the attempt that was made in the House to challenge the Speaker's decisions. That was disappointing. The Speaker does not have and has not had the opportunity to respond to that. He receives procedural advice and takes decisions based on that advice, but let us be clear: the Speaker's record in supporting victims and survivors of historical institutional abuse (HIA) is second to none. He championed those issues, and I find it repugnant that any Member of the House would attempt to undermine the credibility of the Speaker or his decisions.”
“It could wrongly attribute blame or concern in the public eye if the name of an individual or public authority that did not have the information were to be published or the name of a victim who did not want to take part in the process were to be published. I have concerns around re-traumatising them as a victim. I also have GDPR concerns in that regard. I hope that Mr Carroll is able to talk to those. <BR /> <BR />I turn now to amendment Nos 12 and 13. Mr Carroll is not a member of the Committee, but junior Minister Reilly, junior Minister Bunting and officials gave a clear commitment that cross-border cooperation had already started and would continue in earnest. The intention of amendment Nos 12 and 13 is already reflected in the Bill. Maybe Mr Carroll can articulate his points when he has the opportunity to speak to those amendments.”
“My concern is twofold. First, there is no requirement to record the reason why the information was not provided. For example, if the information was not available, that would not be recorded. I am also concerned that, if a request were sent to a victim or survivor who did not want to partake in the process or did not want to hand over evidence or information that they might have, their name would be placed on the public record as someone who had refused to engage with the inquiry. Mr Carroll's amendment may be well intentioned, but my concern is that it could have unintended consequences.”
“I know that the process is the process, but it is difficult to speak to amendments for which the amendments' proposer has not had the opportunity to articulate his case. However, I have some concerns, particularly in relation to amendment No 14. I hope that Mr Carroll will have the opportunity to speak to it. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 14 would insert:”
“I also pay tribute to Committee members from all other political parties for their work and, in particular, to the Chair of the Committee for her work, her diligence and her dedication to the process. It is telling that all of the amendments in the group tabled in the name of the Committee were unanimously agreed by the Committee. That is because all Committee members and, I believe, all Members wanted to ensure that the evidence that we received from victims and survivors was reflected in the Bill and the changes that we see today. That was their approach to the Bill. As a party, we will support all amendments tabled in the names of the Committee and the First Minister and deputy First Minister. <BR /> <BR />I turn now to some of the amendments tabled by Mr Carroll.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak on today's Consideration Stage in what is an historic moment for victims and survivors in Northern Ireland. At the outset, I pay tribute, as others have done, to the victims and survivors for their bravery and dedication. When silence would have been easier, they stepped forward — not just for themselves but for their families and for the generations of victims that came before them. <BR /> <BR />I must make it clear that I have not had as much involvement in the Bill as other members of the Committee. I joined the Committee relatively recently. I pay tribute to my colleagues who undertook work in advance of my arrival.”
“I thank the Chair of the Committee for giving way. She has articulated that she will support amendment No 12. The Chair is much more familiar with the Bill than I am, but I have read clause 16. Does the Chair not think that what is in amendment No 12 is sufficiently covered in clause 16, rather than adding the new subsection to the Bill?”
“Whilst we have no control here over the impact of the ongoing conflict in the Middle East that is driving up costs, we have control over our net zero policies, which also increase energy insecurity in Northern Ireland and drive up people's bills. Will the Minister join me in calling on the leader of the Opposition to support our proposal to remove unreachable and unneeded targets?”
“I wonder whether that is because the First Minister of Scotland and the First Minister of Wales refused to meet Sinn Féin last week when it ran over to Westminster to try to meet them on bended knee. They see the truth, which is that the people of Northern Ireland want all of us here to use our time in the House to focus on the issues that matter to them. <BR /> <BR />Mr Kearney, I encourage you to go to some street corners and pubs, because the issues that people are raising there are not about constitutional change but about the fact that Sinn Féin Ministers continue to fail the people of Northern Ireland. You are exposing the fact that you are unable to deliver for the people whom you claim to represent.”
“Now, those parties who advocate Scotland remaining in the United Kingdom have a 17% lead over the SNP and the Green Party. Those are the facts that the parties opposite do not wish to engage with. Instead of trying to outsource their failed break-up of the United Kingdom to the Irish Government, who are refusing to in any way advance constitutional change on the island, they try to cling to the coat-tails of election results in other parts of the United Kingdom. <BR /> <BR />It is interesting, though, that the party opposite has dropped its new line of a historic three so-called nationalist First Ministers across the United Kingdom.”
“What we have now is Mr O'Toole trying to predict the outcome of the next UK general election, and that is because the SDLP has been unable and unwilling to articulate a case for itself. <BR /> <BR />We often have the rewriting of history in the Chamber, but let us look at the outcome of the so-called historic elections. Let us first deal with Scotland. The SNP lost six seats and over half a million votes. The leader of the Opposition may say that losing seats and votes is a victory — indeed, that is a pattern that his party continues to go down — but I do not think that any other political party would state that that was a great election victory. In Scotland, before the last election, in terms of the popular vote, unionism and those who want to break up the United Kingdom were neck and neck.”
“Mary Lou McDonald promised the people who voted for her party in 2022 that, within five years, we would have a border poll. Mystic Mary Lou then looked at her crystal ball again later that year and changed it to 2030.”
“Instead of chuntering from a sedentary position, Mr McCrossan, perhaps you would be better listening to this. <BR /> <BR />Members talk about the great victory of the SNP, and they talk about the SNP being a model that we need to follow. So interested is that party that they completely rewrote him out of history, but Ian Paisley achieved a lot. My recollection about whether Ian Paisley signed the Belfast Agreement is very different from what the leader of the SNP outlined and very different from the childhood that I grew up in. There was no mention or criticism, of course, of the SNP by the leader of the Opposition. <BR /> <BR />We are used to Mystic Mary Lou McDonald predicting border polls in Northern Ireland, but now we have Mystic Matthew O'Toole.”
“It is because the SDLP has been rejected by the people of Northern Ireland and so, instead, tries to find a bogeyman who will increase support for its party.”
“They are not looking at the issues in relation to the failure by Matthew O'Toole's sister party to deal with illegal immigration. The leader of the Opposition did not raise issues in relation to taxing businesses and workers to death or in relation to picking the pocket of pensioners, which perhaps the SDLP supported at Westminster. No, no: instead, let us blame the people. <BR /> <BR />There is an obsession in the party opposite when it comes to Reform and Nigel Farage. I took a short look at Hansard yesterday: which politician in the Chamber, do you think, has used the words "Nigel Farage" more than any other person? The leader of the Opposition has mentioned Nigel Farage in the Chamber more than every other MLA combined, because he is utterly obsessed with him. I understand the obsession.”
“The debate started off badly, because the leader of the Opposition had to justify or attempt to justify why he brought the motion today, and it only got worse from there. He did not table a motion on delivering the A5, which, I am sure, his colleague Mr McCrossan would support. He did not table a motion on job cuts at Magee university caused by Sinn Féin, which, I am sure, Ms McLaughlin would support, or, indeed, a motion on issues that Mr McGlone would support. No, no: the SDLP dedicates its vital Opposition time to wallowing in the defeat of its sister party, the Labour Party, across the United Kingdom. Rather than dealing with the issues as to why the Labour Party was wholly rejected by the people of the mainland United Kingdom, the Opposition blame the people for the decisions that they take.”
“On a number of occasions, I raised with the Department the requirement that work begins in earnest on how we spend the rest of the AME funding to ensure that Northern Ireland continues on its journey towards a just and fair transition. While it is not technically relevant to the Bill, perhaps the Minister could give a commitment in her winding-up remarks that she will continue to engage with officials to ensure that we spend the remainder of that money moving forward for the benefit of schemes across Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />With that, my party will support the passage of the Bill today.”
“It is important to recognise that the Minister has achieved consensus between political parties, the public and boiler operators. That is to be welcomed, and the Minister should be commended for that. I thank her for her commitment today that she will bring forward the regulations to the Committee as soon as possible, along with the relevant SL1, to allow the Committee and the House to pass their judgement on them. <BR /> <BR />The intent from all Committee members was that we should achieve a fair and proportional outcome that benefited the public and respected and benefited genuine participants. I think that the Minister and the Department have managed to achieve that, though that cannot be the end of the journey on the issue.”
“<BR /> <BR />The overall conclusion of the Committee was that the intent of the Bill was to provide for controls in respect of RHI payments that were proportionate and struck a fair balance between the general public interest of the community and the private interests of persons who have been accredited to the scheme. The costs are substantial, but the Committee understood that they are capped. They are, in effect, in line with the mandate of the court, and the Bill would allow the Department to intervene and amend, should that be required. On that basis, the Committee proposed no amendments to the Bill. I will conclude my part of the speech by thanking the Department for responding to Committee queries in a timely manner. <BR /> <BR />I will make a couple of comments in my capacity as an MLA.”
“In any event, the Bill provides the Department with the power to make regulations that could allow for all necessary corrective changes, including the clawback of payments or suspension of the scheme, should that be required. As indicated, those regulation-making powers would be subject to Assembly approval. <BR /> <BR />Members noted assertions from the Ulster Farmers' Union that metering data continued to be available for many boiler owners and that the UFU welcomed a robust compliance monitoring system. The Committee therefore welcomed departmental assurances that metering data may be used to provide assurance for boiler use. <BR /> <BR />Members also encouraged the Department to publish the detail of its compliance regime and regular updates on related statistics. All of that was seen as vital to ensuring public confidence.”
“<BR /> <BR />Members generally felt that the use of historic data and banding arrangements, though unusual, would likely limit the cost of the scheme to no more than £196 million over the next 10 years, comply with state aid rules and Treasury requirements and thus greatly limit the likelihood of an additional charge against the Northern Ireland block. Although they are not included in the Bill, the Committee felt that the tariffs were calculated on a rational basis and do not appear to generate either unreasonably high or unreasonably low returns for boiler owners and thus meet the requirements of the relevant court rulings.”
“Advice was considered on the regulation-making powers in the Bill and on the interaction between the Bill and the European Convention on Human Rights and article 2(1) of the Windsor framework. <BR /> <BR />Members also considered feedback from the Department on the consultation that it undertook on the draft RHI closure regulations. The Committee agreed its report on the Committee Stage on 25 February 2026, and it was circulated to all Members. The Bill includes only one active clause, which sets out high-level regulation-making powers. Consequently, there was no detail in the Bill on the key RHI non-domestic scheme closure issues, including the closure tariffs, the use of historic data and the banding arrangements.”
“All of that will be subject to draft affirmative resolution, meaning that it will be debated in the Chamber and passed by the Assembly. It is understood that that can happen as soon as the Bill achieves Royal Assent. <BR /> <BR />With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I will briefly summarise the Committee's consideration of the Bill, given the public interest in the matter. Committee Stage commenced on 20 October 2025. A call for evidence was launched to which a number of responses were received. Oral evidence on the Bill was considered from Professor Rooney of Queen's University Belfast, the Renewable Heat Association Northern Ireland and the Ulster Farmers' Union.”
“I will first make some remarks as the Chair of the Committee for the Economy. <BR /> <BR />The Bill allows the Department to make regulations to close the non-domestic RHI scheme, to prevent anyone else joining the scheme and to restrict or cancel aspects of the scheme. In line with the findings of the RHI inquiry, the Bill is a stop button for the RHI scheme, which will be achieved through regulation-making powers that will require the Assembly's approval. <BR /> <BR />The Bill also includes the power to make regulations to vary the sums paid by the Department to scheme participants until the scheme is completely closed and to take into account a deemed or notional generation of heat based on how non-domestic RHI boilers were used in the past. They will be used to determine ongoing closure payments to scheme participants.”
“We will continue to proudly remember our war dead and to proudly remember and celebrate our culture. As the saying goes, "We aren't going away, you know". Today and every day, I will stand with my friends and neighbours in that proud mixed community. I call on the parties that claim to call out sectarianism to take one second out of their day to condemn the absolutely disgraceful acts that continue to happen weekly in Glengormley.”
“The silence from the media and others who have the honour to represent Glengormley has been deafening. For months, the unionist community in the town that I am proud to come from has had no one to stand up and call out those actions, with the exception of this party. This party removed the sign and reported it to the police, because we are proud of the fact that our town is a mixed community. We are proud that people from all backgrounds, traditions and none come together to celebrate the traditions of Glengormley. <BR /> <BR />I have a message for the scumbags who are responsible: you will not stop us from remembering our war dead; you will not stop us from celebrating our culture; and you will not intimidate the unionist community out of Glengormley, as you may wish to do.”
“Another week and yet another disgraceful attack in what is a coordinated and continued campaign of intimidation of the unionist community of Glengormley. In recent months, we have witnessed an attack on our Orange arch, for which there was a conviction. We have seen the attempted destruction of our war memorial; local businesses covered with anti-protestant, anti-unionist graffiti; and our local St John Ambulance station attacked with sectarian graffiti. This weekend, we saw the erection of a poster that stated:”
“Does the Member who made the intervention not accept our point, which is that it should not take the Department for the Economy a year to draft a legislative consent motion? It was the Minister who self-imposed a deadline of having a policy by March 2025. She failed to meet that deadline, and her party colleague is now trying to defend her horrendous record in the Department for the Economy.”
“She can articulate what role, if any, her Department will have in the planning process when the application is submitted. However, I had hoped that the Minister for the Economy would be here, given the fact that it is the single largest private-sector investment that is on the books in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />The aviation strategy that was promised one year ago has not even made it onto the books, and that fails not just Belfast City Airport; it fails Belfast International Airport and the City of Derry Airport. We need a strategy that goes right across our airport sector in order to ensure that tourists can get to Northern Ireland and that we are connected to other parts of the world. I trust that Members will support today's motion.”
“In Northern Ireland, air passenger duty and duty-free sales are not possible as a result of the protocol. It is important to recognise the change in position that the Department for the Economy has committed to. Headed by the Minister, it no longer wants the rigorous implementation of the protocol but recognises the economic damage that the protocol is doing to Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Today, the House has an opportunity to make clear its support for the development of Belfast City Airport. It is equally important to make a commitment that an aviation strategy can no longer be delayed. The Department claimed that it would produce a strategy in 2025: for it to have put together a six-page document one year later and claim progress cannot be accepted. I welcome the fact that the Minister for Infrastructure is here today.”
“We want an air route development fund, but we have already put on the record here the benefit to be seen from that. Two years ago, the Department commissioned and published the York Aviation report, which made it clear that Northern Ireland needed to be more connected to mainland Europe and also needed to focus on our direct routes into North America and, possibly, Canada. The report was produced two years ago, and, to date, we have had no movement. When officials came before the Committee for the Economy a few weeks ago, they made it clear that there would be no route development policy until the final consultation process had been delivered. <BR /> <BR />I welcome some of the aspects in the consultation document, particularly the Department for the Economy's commitment to undo some of the damage done by the Northern Ireland protocol.”
“That is why an aviation strategy, including an air route development policy, is so important, and the Department's delay in producing it is hugely concerning. <BR /> <BR />If you look at the business plan for the Department for the Economy, you see that the target date for the completion of an air connectivity strategy and a route development policy was March 2025. When did the Department belatedly launch a consultation on its proposals? It was in March 2026. In the private sector, a year's delay in producing a strategy or a consultation would not be accepted, and it should not be accepted in the Department for the Economy. The proposals in the aviation strategy are neither new nor groundbreaking, so I do not understand the delay in producing them.”
“I pay particular tribute to the new rail halt proposal that would make Belfast City Airport the first airport on this island to be served by a direct train connection. <BR /> <BR />The role of airports throughout Northern Ireland cannot be underestimated. Belfast International Airport, Belfast City Airport and the City of Derry Airport all have a vital role to play in growing our economy and connecting Northern Ireland to the rest of the world, but, unfortunately, to date, they have had to operate under a piecemeal approach from the Department for the Economy, because, yet again, we have failed to deliver an overall aviation strategy. Given all the benefits that our airports bring, it is incumbent on the Government not only to support plans but to deliver the conditions that attract investment.”