Peter Robinson
East Belfast · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“Although we do not always fully appreciate it, devolution underpins a level of peace and stability that we enjoy today. After 35 years of stop-go government, devolution, with local people taking the decisions, is once again the norm.”
“Mr Speaker, it is a great pleasure and a huge honour for me, in carrying out my last duty as nominating officer for the Democratic Unionist Party, to nominate my good friend and successor as party leader, Mrs Arlene Foster, to be First Minister of Northern Ireland.”
“We have agreed significant reforms to the way in which government operates, with a reduction in the number of Departments and Assembly Members and the creation of an official opposition.”
“<BR /> <BR />Politics, by its nature, is a combative endeavour and we do not always take time to recognise the role that others play. I differ from some in the House on many issues but, in my long experience in politics, there are very few who are not well motivated and who do not act in the best interests of society as they see it.”
“Every new institution composed of politicians who have known nothing other than being in opposition will have a learning curve while Members mature, develop and adapt to taking responsibility and while the more sensible ones adjust their ambitions to fit the politics of what, with effort, is achievable.”
“Through good times and bad, we have worked together, despite our many differences in background, temperament and outlook. Strangely, we were at our strongest when the threat from outside the political institutions was at its greatest.”
The complete record
Every one of 393 lines we hold for Peter Robinson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 8.
“First of all, it was the speediest in-and-out visit that I have had. We literally arrived and did not get a chance to get cases to rooms, but went straight to the first engagement. The next day, we carried out a list of appointments and got the flight back that night. <BR /> <BR />The engagements that we had were very valuable. We met two very significant world brand name companies that have been spoken to by Invest Northern Ireland over a prolonged period of time. I have — I do not want to say "certainty" — certainly a very firm view that both of those companies will be looking to invest in Northern Ireland with a substantial number of jobs. Northern Ireland continues to be a very attractive proposition, not just for North America but for countries throughout the world.”
“I can give an absolute assurance to him that we had no awareness at all of this outrage before the Downey case. I cannot say that other parts of the office may not have been aware of it. Certainly, as far as the First Minister's part of the office is concerned, we were not aware of it. Everybody also recognises that the House of Commons Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee has carried out a very detailed and prolonged investigation, and I expect its report to be out literally within days.”
“Yes, I read the article on the issue. This has, perhaps, confirmed the necessity to have the investigation carried out by Lady Justice Hallett. Her recommendation is that there should be a clear statement from the Government that the letters of comfort have no further validity. They should never have been sent in the first place but, as they have been sent, I recognise that the Secretary of State has made a statement in the House of Commons indicating that they cannot be relied on. I am sure that it will be of interest to all of us to see what happens if and when those matters come before the courts.”
“Mr Speaker, I am shaking too much to answer that question, so I will ask my colleague the junior Minister to do so.”
“If we do not agree the Bill, the scheme and the regulations, we will end up in circumstances, in a year or two, in which we will have no IT system to make payments. If we were to have to purchase the IT system, it would cost us close to £1 billion. If we were not to purchase the IT system, we would be asking staff in offices around the Province to do manual payments. One can imagine the kind of difficulties that that would raise. <BR /> <BR />Those are the implications of not getting it done. It is still doable; it is still doable within the time set out in the Stormont House Agreement, but it requires everybody to roll up their sleeves and make sure that we get it resolved.”
“All of that will be actioned by the passage of the Bill. Those are the steps in the process. The stage that we are now at is looking very seriously at how we can put together the scheme for Executive approval consistent with what we have agreed at Stormont.”
“It is vital that we get it right, but we should be mindful of what the process was and is. There is a Bill that needs to be passed by this Assembly. Arising from that Bill, there will be schemes that will outline how we intend to take the agreement reached at Stormont Castle forward. That would need to be passed by the Executive. Arising out of that, there are over 800 regulations, which should keep his Committee fairly busy for the next year, I would have thought. That is the process. There is nothing to stop us moving on with other elements of the process. The Bill going through the Assembly is the trigger — if I can use that word — for corporation tax powers to be devolved and the decision to be taken by us and the various arrangements that there are with the Treasury involving £2 billion of spend.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is clear that there are a number of benefits, and we were given estimated figures by DSD, so we are flexible about what the allowances might be within that, but the overall spending envelope has to be maintained or we will have to reduce front-line services, and I am simply not prepared to put my hand to that.”
“The Executive can do whatever they want and could allocate further funds. To do so would be taking those funds away from front-line services. I want to make it clear that we are all agreed, as five parties, that we already have an agreement. It was an agreement that we reached at Stormont Castle, and it was fronted up in the Stormont House Agreement. That agreement at Stormont Castle set out spending limits and an envelope of spending over a six-year period. We are looking at implementing that agreement, not changing the figures in it.”
“Their systems currently make all the £5·5 billion of payments made each year to over 700,000 people and families in Northern Ireland, and if there is no agreement, there will be no method of payment.”
“<BR /> <BR />The failure to agree welfare reform is already having a direct financial impact. Every day that welfare reforms are not implemented is another day of shortfall payments having to be made. Having already been fined £100 million by HM Treasury, a failure to agree welfare reform will result in a further penalty of £114 million, which would have a dramatic impact on our Budget; that is, £2 million every week being lost. If we do not reach agreement, the Executive will still have to confront the challenges of how people in Northern Ireland will be paid their social security and tax credit payments in the future, as the Department for Work and Pensions and HM Revenue and Customs will be closing their legacy IT systems, which we are presently using.”
“The Stormont House Agreement implementation group, attended by the five party leaders, continues to meet with officials every Monday and to work towards the previously agreed timescales. However, unless an agreement can be reached on welfare reform, the other elements of the Stormont House Agreement cannot be implemented. The Secretary of State has made clear the repercussions of such a failure: corporation tax will not be devolved, despite the Bill having passed its Final Stage in the House of Lords last week; there will be no funding for the public sector voluntary exit scheme, which could have created a potential saving of up to £500 million per annum; and the planned reduction in Departments and reduction in the number of Assembly Members will not go ahead.”
“With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will ask junior Minister Jonathan Bell to answer this question.”
“I am delighted to see that the nerves are beginning to jangle in the Alliance Party about unionist pacts. It is a matter entirely for individual voters which party and candidate they vote for and a matter for each party whether it stands or does not stand in any constituency and, indeed, for what purpose. I rather suspect that the Equality Commission will not spend an awful lot of its time on this issue at least.”
“If I were to look through the list of issues that the Equality Commission has responsibility for, I could find an awful lot that it would better serve the commission to deal with. However, it is an independent body and has the ability to decide for itself what its priorities are. Equally, we in the House have the independence to comment on or criticise what it does.”
“This is a new question, not the one that is on the Order Paper. Of course, as I understand it, the strategy is out for consultation, and responses have been returned. The responses are being considered in the Department in order that it can draft a potential strategy document for us, and hopefully that will happen reasonably soon.”
“When you consider that they have set aside potential spending of £33,000 for the court case, in which they are seeking damages of £500 against Ashers, it is fairly clear to me that there is a better use that that money could be put to, particularly in the tight fiscal situation that the Executive face.”
“To me, the only thing that is surprising is that 30% of respondents to the poll thought that Ashers should not be given sympathy for the way that it has been treated by the Equality Commission. We live in a society where there will always be competing rights. This is not an issue of discriminating against any section of the community, in terms of the gay or lesbian community, nor is it a matter of attempting to get some special privilege for people of faith. The issue, where there are competing rights, is ensuring that there is a reasonable accommodation so that people can express their views and behave in a way that is consistent with their beliefs. I think that that is what the Equality Commission has missed.”
“The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland is an Executive non-departmental public body sponsored by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister and, as such, is independent of government and Ministers in respect of its operation. Unfortunately, there is no departmental authority to interfere in operational decisions of the commission. In addition, there is no shared departmental position on the matter between the deputy First Minister and me.”
“No, if one Department transfers to another, it does so at a value set by the valuation office. My understanding is that, in December, it was gauged that that was about £3·5 million for the remainder of the site. That is a sale, because, if the Department was going out to carry out a regeneration scheme and purchasing land, it would probably purchase it from the private sector or wherever, so it is a sale. As for where the money goes, it will go eventually into the Department of Finance, which will determine, on the basis of the priorities, where it should be spent, because, in the interim, funding has been given to the Department of Justice.”
“If there is delay, it will not come from our side. It is a simple transfer exercise. There are some issues relating to the potential contamination that has existed on the site. We understand that this is not as profound as in some of the other military sites that we have taken over. We had an initial decontamination survey carried out which showed that the contamination was fairly low-level. The stakeholders and DSD required a further survey, which is under way at present but I do not expect that to be a major issue. As far as the rest of the transfer is concerned, the Department for Social Development has, at the same time, to start working up the scheme and, no doubt, the Minister's stakeholder group will assist with their views as to what could be on the site.”
“Who knows whether there might be some possibility of the future use of the site for the private sector as well? I understand as well that it is possible that it might help some of the traffic flows in the Ballymena area, which would be useful to local residents.”
“I suspect that the Member has had some discussions with the new Social Development Minister on this matter as they share the same constituency and the same interest in this scheme. I spoke with the Minister on Friday to see how we could speed things up. He is keen to have the site and we are keen to pass it on, so my hopes are that this will happen in the very near future. Of course, there are some legal issues to be resolved around the transfer of the site. <BR /> <BR />The Minister is also keen that the proposal is worked up for the future shape of the site. There is already a proposal in relation to housing and he is looking at some educational value on the site. I know that he has had meetings with the Minister for Employment and Learning in relation to ensuring that there is some skills element to the site as well.”
“OFMDFM officials have been engaged in discussions with Department for Social Development officials and other stakeholders in relation to the future regeneration of St Patrick's Barracks. A public-sector stakeholder group has been established and continues to meet to ensure that public bodies with an interest in the site will have an opportunity to shape its development. The Department for Social Development is preparing a proposal to purchase the site from OFMDFM for the purposes of regeneration. This approach should enable early progress to be made on the regeneration of the site and the delivery of a range of economic and social benefits, subject to any formal commitments required by the Department for Social Development from the stakeholders.”
“It is the same recognition that there is with every other delivery function that is being taken out of OFMDFM. We want to make the new Executive office a strategic Department rather than a delivery Department. That makes sense for the overview that we have and the role that we have of coordinating the Executive. It also makes sense because it is bound to be easier for one Minister to take a decision than it is for two Ministers to take a decision, no matter how agreeable they might be. The fact is that we have removed most, if not all, the delivery functions from the Executive office to make it a Department that will have a strategic overview of all the Executive's work, and, particularly, some of the issues that are allocated to it in policy terms.”
“To have a mandatory coalition, where you are put into an Executive not because you have common views but because you have a percentage of the vote, shows just how difficult it is to operate. Much more credit should be given to the fact that, in spite of the massive ideological differences amongst the parties, they have been able to work to the level that they have together and that they have been able to reach some significant agreements.”
“There needs to be an open and honest acknowledgement that no politician in their right senses would have produced a government with 12 Departments, as was done here. It was done for entirely political reasons; it was done to have the maximum number of people in the Executive so that there would be a share-out to parties that were smaller than the main parties. It was done, no doubt, for the best of intentions; it was important to get as wide a buy-in to the process as possible. <BR /> <BR />None of that, whether it is nine Departments or 12, should stop colleagues working together effectively and efficiently. We are from different Departments, and there are coalitions that are much less successful than ours elsewhere in the world, including some not too far from where we are. There are difficulties in operating a coalition of any form.”
“On that basis, you can look at a priority in a Department as opposed to what the priority might be in another Department; that is how money should be allocated. <BR /> <BR />When we enter a new Assembly and a new CSR period, all previous bets are off; it will be up to the Executive to take the decision about how funds are allocated in-year as well as over the Budget period.”
“My advice to the Finance Minister would be not to do that. To give any Minister the ability to move money around the various functions in a Department would be a retrograde step. The Executive, collectively, need to make the determination on each of the heads of expenditure and be satisfied that that is the right balance. It would be wrong for any Minister to take it out of balance. <BR /> <BR />As we go through a year, there will be circumstances where, if there are savings in one area, the Finance Minister can allocate them to other Departments or give flexibility to a Minister to use those savings in his or her Department. My view is that we are far better having a system where everything comes back to the centre and is reallocated.”
“<BR /> <BR />In terms of the finance, I hope that, when we come to the Budget, a more responsible attitude will be taken by some people in this House, who simply want to vote against a Budget, no matter what it is. When you allocate funds, it is always easy to look at the various permutations, but the hard decision has to be taken, and, in circumstances where our Budget has been massively reduced over the last number of years because of decisions taken by the coalition Government, those decisions become harder and harder. By saving money, by reducing the number of Departments and their staff, we are taking a further step to the reform of public services that my colleague is taking forward.”
“This statement does not go into the allocation of funding. What will happen, I suspect, is that the Finance Minister, when looking at future Budgets, will look at the funds received for the various functions and pass them on to the new Department responsible. There will always be a call for more money for every element of government. Indeed, I could have argued a long time ago that children's functions should have gone to the Department of Education. It has now been recognised that all children's services, excepting those that relate to health, will be in the Department of Education, which is the right place for them in my view.”
“When the Member joins with me and is able to convince other colleagues in this House that a voluntary coalition is the right way to go. I went to Stormont House, and I argued for that; however, we came out with the highest level of agreement possible. I recognise entirely that, as time goes on, we have to democratise and normalise the Assembly much more, and that can only be done if we get something akin to the system that we had at Westminster. I am not sure that his analogy was the best in the present circumstances: who knows who will be in the next Government of the United Kingdom?”
“Of course, I recognise, and I should put on record, that we are putting a significant burden on our Civil Service, which is already having to handle significant change as a result of the reduction in size of the public service. This requires very careful work to ensure that front-line services are not adversely affected and will also involve moving staff around Departments. The Civil Service will therefore be under very considerable pressure over the next number of months, and we should put on record our appreciation. We can take a decision at an Executive meeting, in an implementation body or at Stormont House, but civil servants have to do the work on the ground to put it in place.”
“The reductions that we have had and the savings that will flow from them are entirely in line with what we have been attempting to do at a time of great financial difficulty.”
“My friend is entirely correct in indicating what the purpose and value of the changes will be. While the silo mentality is ultimately in the minds of individuals as opposed to the structure of any Department, the fact that there will be fewer Departments obviously makes it easier for coordination and cooperation between them. There is also greater recognition that, as we mature as an Assembly, we need to look towards joined-up government and that Departments, even when you reduce them to the number that we have, will still have overlap and will still have the necessity to work with each other. I hope that the silo mentality will be removed from the minds of Ministers.”
“The present timetable requires us to get a Bill through the House so that it becomes a Departments Act and to get a functions order through the Assembly. If we were to decide to reallocate the functions of any Department — the Member mentions OFMDFM's delivery functions — it could be done legally and it could be done within the time that is allocated. I am not sure that there is a great advantage in making that change for what would probably end up being about eight or nine months, because you would be spreading those amongst the 11 existing Departments, as opposed to the eight other Departments that would be in place after the election. While it could be done, I do not see any real advantage in doing it, and it seems that the election and a new Assembly is the right time for the complete change to take place.”
“The safeguard is in the hands of the Minister, the Committee and those who have the responsibility. I would have thought that having the two of them in the one Department allows for greater coordination and hopefully a greater understanding of the pros and cons of each issue. Ultimately, the responsibility lies, as it always has, with a Minister, and the responsibility for calling that Minister to account lies, as it always has, with a departmental Committee set up by the Assembly.”
“The deputy First Minister and I will discuss that in the future.”
“<BR /> <BR />It was necessary for us to have agreement on what the Departments would be and what they would be called because we have to start preparing the legislation. We can refine the functions further. There is still room for us to discuss some of those issues. We still have not decided whether junior Ministers are needed in the new Executive Office, whether they should go to other Departments and whether there is a view that, because more business will be carried out by other Departments, they have a greater call for a junior Minister. Those issues have not been decided. The responsibility for that lies with the deputy First Minister and me. We have the sole responsibility under the legislation for determining whether there are junior Ministers and where they should be.”
“Junior Ministers were thought to be necessary in OFMDFM because, unknown to a number of people — at least if they know, they have not let on — OFMDFM takes in the broad range of work of all of the government Departments and therefore, both in terms of special advisers and the need for junior Ministers, it is recognised that there is a considerable workload across the range of government responsibilities. We will maintain all the strategic roles, issues and functions of OFMDFM, but we will have a much more strategic role, rather than a delivery role. That will allow greater coordination between Departments in the future. I indicated in my statement that this was the broad outline of what we wanted to do.”
“The onus is not on the two main parties but on those who choose to separate themselves from an Executive decision.”
“Far be it from me to remind the Member that it was his party that created the system. We have been able to refine and improve it as time has gone on, but it should not be a two-party system. We have a full-time implementation body: it is called the Executive. All the Executive parties are there, and all take part in the discussions that we have and the decisions that are made. I hope that, as time goes on, the smaller parties — I have to point out that not all of the three smaller parties are in the same category on this — recognise that they have a responsibility to their colleagues in the Executive to take the position that is collectively agreed, rather than trying to score party political points outside and look for issues where they can try to undermine the two main parties.”
“I think everybody recognises that it needs to be done, and I hope we have sufficient stability here for people to think that this is the right time to do it.”
“During the talks process, my party argued that it should be down to somewhere in the region of 70. We were prepared to compromise in the region of 90. At the end of the day, the Stormont House Agreement said that it would be reduced to 90 by 2021, but it could be done for 2016 and would still be within the terms set out in the agreement. I hope that, in the implementation group the party leaders are in, we can convince people that a faster timetable is possible. There is no legislative reason why it could not be done, there would be significant savings and it would make the Assembly more in line, though not entirely in line, with the representation in Scotland and Wales. The Assembly is still two or three times as large, per head of the population, as Scotland and Wales.”
“After over a decade of my party arguing for a reduction in the number of Departments, I do not want my joy to be dampened in any way now that that is crystallising in the Assembly. We also want a reduction in the number of Assembly Members.”
“That is why a generic title serves the Department much better.”
“I mentioned to my colleague that there are hundreds of functions of government, and I am sure that all Assembly Members will have their own view of what the real priorities are. However, if one were to look at the Department for Communities and add "arts" to the title, is the Member saying that that is more important than housing; urban regeneration; the Social Security Agency; child maintenance services; the voluntary and community sector; museums; libraries; creativity and architecture; language; cultural diversity; sport; the Public Record Office; employment services; local government; the social investment fund; and racial equality? I could go on and on. If the argument is that arts is more important than all those issues, the Member can ask the question, but I do not believe that it is more important than many of those issues.”
“Unquestionably, there will be savings, which might come to the Assembly as well as to the Executive. When you cut out three private offices, three permanent secretaries and their staff and all the paraphernalia of government that goes with them, there are savings to be made. If you have nine rather than 12 Committees covering Departments, I am sure that the Assembly will also offer money back to my colleague the Minister of Finance on the savings that will be made here.”
“As we are dealing with a specific issue about Departments and functions, that does not exactly sit alongside it. However, an implementation group has been set up as a result of the Stormont House Agreement, and the leaders of each party and some of their colleagues are on it. If the Member feels that progress is not fast enough, I am sure that he will get the ear of his party leader and tell him that he is not moving fast enough.”
“This will reduce the number of Ministers. It may have an impact on the number of junior Ministers. Some larger Departments might argue that they have a better case for a junior Minister than the Executive Office. The SpAds will follow the Ministers wherever they go, but there will be fewer special advisers because of the reduced number of Departments. That should bring joy to some people in the House at least.”