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 6 of 8.
“I completely forgive the Member. I do not expect him to be held by any of the agreements reached by five parties around the table that he was not a party to. He and other Members who were not party to that agreement will want to put forward amendments and improve the agreement. <BR /> <BR />I am not simply saying that we did an agreement at the end of last year and that, therefore, nothing but that agreement can go through this House. If there were improvements to be made, it was up to each of the parties to bring whatever improvements they thought could be made to the implementation body that was set up with all the leaders present in it and see whether they could get agreement from the other leaders around the table. <BR /> <BR />That was done, and, surprisingly, it was done by the Ulster Unionist Party.”
“I will give way; just let me finish this sentence. I hope that someone from the Ulster Unionist Benches or the SDLP Benches who have put down these amendments will be able to tell us, at a later stage, precisely how much their amendments are going to cost and how they are going to be paid for.”
“What will the cost be if that were to be implemented and how would it be paid for?" I hope that someone from the Ulster Unionist Benches or the SDLP Benches —”
“Therefore, any changes that any Member brings forward by way of an amendment that have a cost attached to them will either not be fully implemented because of the lack of funds to do so or they will take money away from welfare payments elsewhere — or maybe somebody wants to take money out of the health service, the education service or elsewhere. <BR /> <BR />If Members stand up and put forward an amendment that costs money, as some of these amendments in this set do, they have a duty to tell us how much it is going to cost, because, presumably, nobody would be so rash as to bring forward an amendment on an issue like this without having it costed. I am sure that they have gone to officials in the Department and said, "Look, here is the amendment that we want to push.”
“I will come to that in a moment, but I think it is perhaps important, in the context of this group of amendments, that we understand the nature of the issues discussed yesterday at the implementation leaders group about the outcome of today's debate. <BR /> <BR />When we agreed at Stormont Castle a range of issues in relation to welfare and the cost that would be imposed, the Finance Minister, quite rightly, went off and prepared his Budget based on that. It was a Budget that was accepted by the Executive and which is now going through its various processes in the House. So, we have now set in stone, as it were, what the expenditure will be on each area of government. <BR /> <BR />For welfare issues, the cost for us in the next financial year is already set up in the Budget.”
“There are conventions, which are generally recognised in debating Chambers, that a Member should give way to someone on the Front Bench, but he chose not to because he recognised that he would have difficulty responding to any point made to him. It was noticeable that, when my friend, the Member for East Antrim Mr Wilson, asked him to give way on a different issue later, he was happy to do so, but he was not willing to give way on this issue because he recognised the weakness of his case. <BR /> <BR />It is particularly disturbing that someone who has responsibility as a Deputy Speaker in the House clearly does not understand — that is the best interpretation that I can put on it — the rules of the House on petitions of concern.”
“We have what roughly comes out as an average cost of £90 million a year over that six-year period, but many of us are hopeful that that will be reduced to an average of £70 million because, in my view, the bedroom tax issue will have to be resolved at a UK level, and there would be a saving of over £20 million to Northern Ireland if that came about. <BR /> <BR />I offer those figures only for openness. They do not particularly relate to the issue that I want to address, which arises out of the comments made by Mr Beggs. Regrettably, the Member obviously thought that he was on such weak ground that he was not prepared to give way.”
“<BR /> <BR />I do not have the paper with the overall figure in front of me, but there is no particular secrecy about the amounts, although anybody looking at the figures should be cautious, in that, unlike many other areas of government spending, welfare payments depend on those who apply. It is a demand-led cost, and, therefore, you can never be too accurate about what the cost may be. <BR /> <BR />DSD previously indicated that the cost would go up from £13 million to £87 million to £114 million in the next financial year. It then moved to £250 million and to over £370 million in the following year. Those would have been our penalties for moving away from the GB system.”
“Uncharacteristically, the Member is being mischievous. I am not in the business of rubbing anybody's nose in it or scoring party points on those issues. The architecture is exactly the same: it is the GB system plus enhancements. That is what we proposed 18 months to two years ago, and that is the outcome of the agreement that we now have. In the agreement that we offered 18 months to two years ago, we had a sum of money in addition to removing bedroom tax that we were prepared to look at in terms of how we could have enhancements. The Stormont Castle agreement defined how that money should be spent and looked at the individual areas where improvements could be made.”
“All five parties signed up to that. Not only did they sign up to the Stormont Castle agreement but the party leaders went down to meet the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and sold it to her as the way forward. That included, incidentally, a pitch for further funds and more flexibility. <BR /> <BR />After the Stormont House Agreement, some parties reserved their position in some way, but there was no reserving of position on the Stormont Castle agreement amongst the five Executive parties. All agreed to the specifics of welfare reform. We did that after very detailed discussions about how each element of change would be made and how much it would cost.”
“However, there was a second agreement, and that agreement was the Stormont Castle agreement. That was an agreement reached by the five Executive parties, dealing with a wide range of financial issues, including a commitment to agree a Budget and issues relating to the reduction in the size of the public-service payroll. It dealt with matters such as corporation tax and, importantly, issues relating to welfare reform.”
“<BR /> <BR />That was the conundrum that we faced, and it was recognised, I think at an early stage, that, if we were to go off and set up our own welfare system, that would be massively costly and would take money away from areas in which it really could be beneficial. I do not want to go into what happened over that two-year period, although, if I were to do so, it would be much to the praise of my colleagues on how they handled the matter. It is sufficient to say that, when we got to the tail end of last year, some serious negotiations took place on how we would take this matter forward. In that context, it is worth pointing out that, at the end of last year, there were two agreements. There is the one that is publicly known and that people can go back to and find if they google it, and that is the Stormont House Agreement.”
“Since the Ulster Unionist Party and the Conservative Party went forward in the 2010 election on a policy of cutting expenditure in Northern Ireland as elsewhere, and as they jointly went forward with a manifesto commitment that they would take an axe to welfare in the United Kingdom as a whole, it left those of us in government here and those of us in the Assembly with a conundrum: the desire to ensure that we did the very best that we could for those who are in need and genuinely require support on welfare issues and, at the same time, being able to provide the public services that are necessary in the context of the Budget that was constrained by the Ulster Unionist Party and Tory commitment to cut public spending.”
“At the beginning, I should point out that I speak as leader of the party, as opposed to speaking in my capacity as First Minister. My colleague and good friend the Minister for Social Development will deal with all the Executive's issues relating to the Bill. <BR /> <BR />It is important at this stage to register the fact that the Assembly has much to be thankful for, in that we have reached the point at which this Bill can be brought before Members, hopefully for approval.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can we have some assistance from the Chair? When a person who is speaking in this House also has the title of being a Deputy Speaker, is it right that he shows such inane inability to understand the rules of this House that he would seek to mislead the House into believing that they do not have the right to put down amendments and to vote on those amendments and that anyone who puts down a petition of concern can decide which way they vote on any amendment?”
“Is the Member so sure he is accurate in what he is saying that he will not give way?”
“He is not a divisive character; he is the kind of person who wants to resolve disputes. Most of all, he will bring integrity to the position. He will show fairness in the way he carries out those duties, and, importantly, because there is a Speaker's panel — a team of Deputy Speakers under the Speaker — he is a team player. He will not in any way shirk his responsibilities in doing his duties. <BR /> <BR />For all those reasons, I believe that my colleague is a suitable candidate for this job. I believe that he will carry it out in a fashion that will be recognised by the whole House as independent and fair. I urge colleagues to support him.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have known Robin Newton for many decades. He has been a close friend and colleague and, of course, one of my colleagues in east Belfast. He was, I think, first elected to Stormont in 2003, so he has many years' experience of working under the procedures of the Assembly. Even before that, of course, he was a member of Belfast City Council, with long experience there. That is a training ground for many politicians. He certainly learnt the ropes in the city council. This will be a clincher for the nationalist Benches: he was recognised by Her Majesty The Queen and honoured with an MBE. Of course, in the House, he has been a junior Minister in OFMDFM, and, at one stage, he led our team on the Policing Board. He has a lifelong experience of parliamentary procedures. How shall I put it?”
“I propose Mr Robin Newton as a Deputy Speaker.”
“I will ask my colleague Jonathan Bell to answer that question.”
“However, there was not agreement from the other parties, although I trust, in the days, weeks and months ahead, that people will consider the pressure on public finances and look at this as being one mechanism whereby we can show that we are prepared to take pain as well.”
“I suppose that the answer to that question is that we do not have to wait until 2021. The Stormont House Agreement, carefully worded as it was, indicated that any change in the numbers to 90 should take place in time for the 2021 election. That does not mean that it could not take place in time for the 2016 election. Doing it for 2016 would mean that it would be done in time for the 2021 election as well. All that it requires is agreement. <BR /> <BR />I know that the Alliance Party and the Democratic Unionist Party support going straight to 90 seats in 2016. Indeed, my party believed that there should be 72 seats. We already have between two and three times the number of elected representatives in Northern Ireland per head of population as Scotland does. Therefore, I think that there is good cause to see a reduction.”
“Yes, it has more than commenced. Indeed, the deputy First Minister and I had asked the head of the Civil Service, who is also the permanent secretary of our Department, to work up some options, which he had done even before the Stormont House Agreement. He has produced a paper, which the deputy First Minister and I shared with Executive colleagues at the last Executive meeting and which gives a favoured option, although there are some issues in it to be clarified. Executive colleagues were asked to come back — I think by tomorrow — with any proposals that they might have for amendments to the document. If we can make sufficient progress, I hope that we might even get it on to the agenda of a special Executive meeting this week. If not, it will be on the agenda for next week's meeting.”
“The allocations in the Budget give an additional £204 million to the health service. However, it is for the Health Minister, who is in day-to-day contact with the pressures and priorities that he has to meet, to determine how that should be allocated.”
“We have not met the new Health Minister on that subject, but as the new Health Minister is a very intelligent and well-read individual, he will know of our support for that proposal. As I understand it, the Member has a Bill that is working its way through the House, and I have made clear my intention to support it when it comes to the Chamber.”
“Well, let me tell them that, as far as I am concerned, I did get a mandate to seek powers for corporation tax to be given to Northern Ireland, I did get a mandate to reform public services, I did get a mandate to rebalance the economy in Northern Ireland and I got a mandate to deal with welfare reform. How dare the trade unions tell me what my manifesto and my policy documents were. We sought a mandate; we got a mandate; we implemented that mandate.”
“Sacked civil servants? It is a downright lie from the pit. There is no sacking of civil servants under this proposal; it is a voluntary exit scheme, "voluntary" being the key word in it. I suspect that it will be the unions' members who will be volunteering to be part of that exit scheme. They go on in their advertisement to say:”
“If one was to read the advertisement, one would not see that it is a voluntary exit scheme that is being proposed. Here is a sentence from it:”
“The advertisement shows a very poor knowledge of economic principles and facts.”
“I am sure that many of the party leaders in the House will have received representation in the run-up to and during the Stormont House Agreement from church and civic leaders, including representatives of the trade unions, telling us that it was our responsibility to be prepared to compromise and to make accommodation for others. I have to say that I agree with the principles behind the Make it Work campaign, but it is sad to see that, although it went to such lengths in launching its campaign, as soon as the parties reach agreement in talks, one of its member organisations comes out with the most outrageous statements about the agreement. That is not leadership, which was what the campaign was saying people needed to show in order to reach agreement in Northern Ireland.”
“<BR /> <BR />My understanding is that the penalties will cease as soon as the House has passed the legislation and regulations, so there will be no further cost once we have passed that mark.”
“I indicated that there was a five-party agreement on a range of financial matters, one of which included the changes to the welfare system that would be necessary, and because all five parties signed up to the detailed proposals in that document, I am confident that we will be able to move forward on the welfare changes on a united basis. Therefore, as that is based on using the DWP computer systems, there will be no additional cost to have our own IT system. There will be some added cost for the enhancements in our system, which will require some refinement of IT programmes, but that is very small compared with the major change in cost that there would have been if we had to have our own system.”
“I recognise that there are some who would choose to use it as an à la carte menu by picking the bits that they like and leaving the hard decisions for the two larger parties. That is not giving leadership, and it is certainly not very responsible.”
“The five party leaders went to the Secretary of State to show that we were prepared to take those hard decisions that were necessary to get our finances on a stable, sustainable and long-term basis. <BR /> <BR />It is sad to say that not all the parties that were on that delegation were able to give the degree of support that was necessary when the first issue came before them — namely, the passing of a Budget. However, I hope that they will get themselves into order and will recognise the obligation that they have to implement those elements of the agreement. That is because, as I sat at Stormont House, I did not hear anybody around the table say that they rejected the agreement.”
“I have to say to my colleague that I hope that it does not. Indeed, we had a meeting on Monday last week, if I recall, when all five Executive party leaders confirmed that they wanted to work towards implementing that agreement. Meetings are now set up to work towards its implementation. <BR /> <BR />Of course, I think that it is worth pointing out that there were, in effect, two agreements, although only one has been published. There is a second agreement — the Stormont Castle Agreement — in which all five party leaders and their teams agreed to a financial package that included welfare reform, the reform of the public services and a range of budgetary issues.”
“The Member would need to tell me in what way he feels our Public Accounts Committee is deficient in carrying out its duties, given the prominent role of some members of his party in it.”
“Yes. The only occasion when we have been knocked off course in our financial management has related to issues around welfare reform. It was the penalties and the costs in relation to that that knocked us off course and caused the difficulty that we had in the previous months. We have now resolved those issues. There is a five-party agreement on welfare reform, and, therefore, I do not look to seeing any problem with that in the future. Yes, what is required is some political courage from parties that, in one place, appear before the Secretary of State indicating how they will work to resolve all these financial issues but, when the first hurdle appears before them of passing a Budget and taking difficult decisions, run away and go into the no camp.”
“It is the role of this House to look at the finances and to challenge the Minister where necessary, and it is the role of the Committees set up by the House to do precisely that. Those who are looking for that kind of institution to be placed in Northern Ireland seem to be saying that they are not capable of doing their own job.”
“It is brave of the Member to make those comments given that the only finger that was being pointed by the Finance Minister earlier was against the Minister from his party for the mismanagement of his departmental finances. We need to remember that the OBR is set in a national context, dealing with tax regimes, welfare payments and those kinds of issues and looking at the performance of government in relation to the wider economy. We do not exactly fit in that category. It is not as if we are short of advice on financial matters. In many ways, putting a body such as the OBR in place in Northern Ireland would indicate to me that Members did not have much confidence in their role.”
“Discussions in relation to the creation of a body equivalent to the OBR took place during the talks that led to the Stormont House Agreement but did not form part of a final agreement. While the matter remains under consideration, given the more limited financial responsibilities of Stormont compared with Westminster, a clear case has not yet been made for the establishment of such a body. The difficulties faced in managing finances have been created not by a lack of information about the consequences of decisions but by the challenges of reaching political agreement. We believe that the Budget agreed by the Executive last Thursday and the implementation of the Stormont House Agreement will put our finances on a stable, long-term footing.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, I will ask junior Minister Jonathan Bell to answer this question.”
“With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will ask junior Minister Jonathan Bell to answer the question.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, I will ask my colleague junior Minister Jonathan Bell to answer the question.”
“Officials are looking to reshape the conditions around the job, and I suspect that that will take a number of days. We will go out to advertisement after that, and then you are into the business of carrying out the interviews and making the appointment. Although the deputy First Minister and I would take it very much as a second-best option, we have the option of putting in an interim commissioner if that was felt to be helpful, but that will depend largely on what officials tell us is the time frame for having a commissioner in place.”
“Those are some of the things that can be done. We need to remember that victims have been given a very high priority since devolution. We have increased by a multiple of four the funding that has gone to victims since direct rule, and, indeed, the Budget that my friend announced to the House today will give the highest-ever annual level for victims' funding. That is important. It indicates the importance that the Executive give to it, and it is right that we ensure that we get the very best person for the job. Perhaps we need to significantly increase the advertising involved to attract a wider range of people for the job.”
“I agree with the Member that it is disappointing, but it is important that we get the right person for the job and ensure that those involved have the best possible representation through someone whom they can work with and who can easily work with them. Over the next number of days we will look to see whether there is a need for a further advertisement — one that is maybe more widely advertised than previously — and whether there is a case for reconsidering the level of remuneration. As I understand it, the Children's Commissioner is remunerated at a higher level than was offered for the Victims' Commissioner. We can maybe look at relocation costs and those kinds of issues to see whether that brings in a larger pool of candidates.”
“Considering the importance that we place on ensuring that all victims and survivors have an appropriate representative voice through the commissioner, we want to ensure that we have the right person for the job. The current process produced a disappointingly small pool of appointable candidates. We have therefore agreed to try to widen the pool through a new competition. In the interim, the commission is continuing to deliver its work plan this year and is working with the victims' forum to ensure that victims and survivors' interests remain at the forefront of our actions.”
“I am pleased to say, and to see, that that has now happened. I therefore intend to honour that agreement and to give support to Mitchel McLaughlin. <BR /> <BR />I say only one thing to him and to the House. An example has been set by the outgoing Speaker, William Hay, who is soon to become a Lord. I think that everyone recognises that William, in the exercise of his duty, cut his connection from party politics. That is essential, and I make it clear: there should be no party instructions to a Speaker. The Speaker must act independently in that office, and I trust that that will happen.”
“I want to make clear first of all that there is no legal or constitutional requirement for the Speaker to come from the Foyle constituency, although I am sure that there is a recognition that there must be something special in the air down there to have the proposals coming from that constituency. <BR /> <BR />I remind the House that, when we previously looked at this issue in September, I pointed out on behalf of my colleagues that an agreement had been entered into. Let us remember, this House will not have a Speaker unless there is an agreement, particularly between the two main parties, and therefore would not operate and function properly without it. We indicated that we would honour the agreement to have a Sinn Féin nominee in that position when Sinn Féin had agreed on the issue of welfare reform.”
“OFMDFM has statutory ownership of the Equality Commission but does not have any operational responsibility for it. The Equality Commission itself has a duty and remit that requires it to uphold equality for everyone. That has to include those who are Christian as well as those who are not.”