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 8 of 8.
“I will ask my colleague Jonathan Bell to answer that question.”
“However, I am not sure that we have reached the stage where such a significant change should be made. Happily, that is a reserved matter for Westminster.”
“I am not sure that that is a transferred matter. Nonetheless, no matter what age is stipulated in legislation, a case can always be made for reducing it. If it was 16 and 17, people would come along and tell us that 15-year-olds are now more mature than they have ever been before and they are interested in politics, and we should reduce the voting age. And so it goes on, so that, along with your birth certificate, you will be registering for elections. <BR /> <BR />We need to recognise that there is an age when we can be certain that people understand the issues, are likely to come out in the appropriate numbers and have had sufficient experience of life to enable them to take key decisions. People are more capable of taking major decisions younger and younger.”
“Clearly, if you allow more people to vote, the possibility of increased voting is inevitable. However, participation was so high, right across Scotland, that it indicated that the issues at stake in this election were of such importance to the people of Scotland, of every age group, that we had a massive poll. Unfortunately, when we get around to parliamentary, Assembly or European elections, there are a whole range of issues. The importance of any significant issue does not outweigh your constitutional status. People come out depending on how important they view an election to be. That is the same whether you are 16 and 17 or 60 and 70.”
“Corporation tax is, in my view, doable and valuable, and we should continue to seek it. Income tax, which is being offered to the Scots and is up for referendum in Wales, would be a very considerable difficulty and would have a significant cost, as indeed would some of the other elements, such as National Insurance contributions. So it is no panacea. There are problems that need to be thoroughly investigated, and I am glad that the Department of Finance and Personnel is already preparing papers on each of those elements.”
“I do not think that it would transform the economy in Northern Ireland, and there would be a small cost attached to it. However, it certainly is doable. If VAT was to be considered, there would be some major EU difficulties with Northern Ireland being given those powers. Even if it was being devolved around the United Kingdom, there would be very considerable costs, although, on the upside, it would, for instance, allow you to look at hotels, restaurants and other tourist-led functions and reduce VAT to increase that element of the economy. So there are levers that you could use if you had VAT control. However, I do not think that we would get it, because of Europe, and there would be a cost to us exercising that power. Landfill tax is, again, doable, but is not going to bring the transformative change that the Member is looking for.”
“The first things that we need to ask ourselves when we look at taking any additional power is whether we can operate it and do we have the cohesion in the Assembly and Executive to be able to take decisions on taxation matters. Secondly, if we had that power, would there be a financial incentive or advantage to us or would it simply be to tax more, which is the answer that some people will give? Thirdly, if we are going to have that power, would there be a cost to us in operating it? I suppose that there is a fourth question, which is this: what social or economic change can we bring about by exercising that power? <BR /> <BR />Look at some of the taxes that are available. I think that there would be little difficulty in us operating such a scheme as stamp duty land tax. It is doable.”
“There is a limit to the impact that many of those taxes and other arrangements would have to enable the Executive to make real and meaningful change. There is no panacea to be found in that, but there would be a significant cost if we were to take over responsibility for some of those elements and had to operate them ourselves rather than having the economy of scale of the whole of the United Kingdom operating them.”
“I am sure that the Member will join me in welcoming the outcome of the Scottish referendum and the strong desire to retain the Union with the rest of the United Kingdom. In welcoming that, I recognise that he wants to strengthen the Union by improving the structures in the United Kingdom. In that context, as I indicated earlier in Question Time, we already have a commitment from the United Kingdom Government in the economic pacts that were signed by the deputy First Minister and me with the Prime Minister, David Cameron, that we would consider all the fiscal levers to see what further powers should be devolved. <BR /> <BR />I do not accept the premise that simply transferring the economic levers into the hands of the Assembly will necessarily transform the social and economic policy of Northern Ireland.”
“With your permission, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I will ask junior Minister Jonathan Bell to answer the question.”
“With your permission, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I will ask junior Minister Jonathan Bell to answer the question.”
“I am indicating that I want to improve the arrangements in the Assembly and for the Executive. It would be utter folly, in wanting to improve the modalities of the House, if I were to suggest that people should not be able to raise and seek agreement on issues that are important to them. Of course we will look at all the issues to see how best we can get a properly effective and efficiently running Assembly and Executive so that decisions can be taken and do not lie in deadlock. I would have thought that among those who would be cheering me from the rafters would be the party whose leader recognised a long time ago that the ugly scaffolding of the agreement needed to be removed.”
“Once again, characteristically, the Member gets it wrong. I never threatened these institutions at all. I indicated that I could not remain in government if there was not a judge-led inquiry into the on-the-runs (OTR) issue. I am glad that there was a judge-led inquiry, that the inquiry made recommendations, that the Government accepted those recommendations and that, as a result of their accepting those recommendations, the validity of the letters has now changed, and the letters will no longer be able to be relied on by anybody whom the police want to deal with. <BR /> <BR />I have dealt with the Member's inaccuracy rather than my inconsistency, so let me now deal with what would be on the agenda for the modalities of the Assembly and the Executive.”
“The Belfast Agreement was not like the law of the Medes and Persians which changeth not and was a recognition that there was room for improvement, room for updating and room for upgrading. Indeed, if the Member was right, we would never have had a St Andrews Agreement and we would never have had a Hillsborough Castle Agreement. So, clearly, things do move on, and improvements are made along the way. Certainly, nothing should be done in a new agreement that destabilises political life in Northern Ireland and allows us to go back to the dark days of the past.”
“However, there are wider constitutional matters about our place at Westminster, including the role that our MPs would have at Westminster and whether the House of Lords could be a more representative Chamber in relation to the regions. There are a number of different issues that the Committee could and should look at, but it should not be it exclusively that does that. I think that, as political parties, we should be doing it too.”
“As parties in the Assembly, we want to be sure that we get the best possible arrangements for Northern Ireland. Already in the economic pact that was signed by the deputy First Minister and me and by the Prime Minister, there is an agreement to look at all the fiscal levers that are at the disposal of the United Kingdom to see whether any of them could be devolved to Northern Ireland. It is much in that same vein that I think the pledge that was made to Scotland was set out. So, that already is an undertaking that we have from the United Kingdom Government and one that we are presently doing work on in the Department of Finance and Personnel on the financial levers.”
“In the context of the 1998 Act, there is a requirement for the Assembly and Executive Review Committee to carry out a review before May 2015 on internal Northern Ireland matters. However, there is no exclusion placed on the Assembly or the Committee on looking at wider issues relating to Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom and the structures that would best suit Northern Ireland for our relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom. I think that it would be a very useful exercise for the Committee and one that all parties in the Chamber need to consider over the next number of weeks and months. <BR /> <BR />An important debate has begun in the United Kingdom; it is clear that there are going to be changes in the operation of our constitution as a part of this nation.”
“In the past, when there was an agreed position on matters under review by the Committee, representations were made, notably in relation to the devolution of policing and justice. In circumstances where further agreements are reached, we anticipate making further representations to the Committee. We welcome the work of the Committee and the opportunity that its reports present for Assembly plenary debate on our structures of government.”
“The Committee began its review in 2012, producing separate reports that year on the future size of the Assembly and the number of Departments. It has since produced reports on the d’Hondt arrangements, community designation, provisions for an opposition and, most recently, on petitions of concern. The Committee is currently undertaking further important work regarding the role of women in politics and in the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />The deputy First Minister and I met the Chair and the Deputy Chair of the Committee on 4 April 2012 at the start of its review. Where appropriate, we may make representations to the Committee as it conducts further work in relation to parts III and IV of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.”
“The Assembly and Executive Review Committee has a statutory responsibility under section 29A of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to report before 1 May 2015 on the operation of Parts III and IV of that Act, which set out the arrangements for the devolved institutions.”
“At those meetings, there was a realistic recognition on the part of everybody whom I spoke to that we needed to improve the way that we operate. <BR /> <BR />Unquestionably, people will come from different angles on what the priorities for change are, but, first, let us all at least accept the need for change. When we accept that, we can start a proper and helpful debate about what those changes can be, how they will impact on the delivery that we have for the public and how we can be sure that we do not end up with deadlock but can get decisions taken in the Assembly and Executive.”
“I did not know that the Member had published his Bill, so it would be very rash to support something that I have not even seen, though I am sure that it will be full of improvements. Having talked to him about the issue, I know that some of the issues he mentions are ones that I would readily support, although I have concerns about some that he has talked about. <BR /> <BR />The fact that he has in preparation a private Member's Bill to improve the way that the Assembly functions is an indicator that there is clearly a need for us to upgrade the Assembly and Executive's functions and arrangements. If we take that as a given, I have had a meeting with, I think, every party and those who are independents in the House.”
“Nobody in the Chamber will be able to withstand the public outcry if we attempt to take £1 billion out of our Budget. The whole lot of us will be swept from office, and we would deserve to be swept from office if we tolerated such a set of circumstances. It is, as the former Minister of Agriculture said, simply not tenable.”
“<BR /> <BR />If anybody wants to say, "These other items are more important or as important", let them tell me where they will make the reductions of £1 billion. It simply cannot be done. This is not away down the road. In the next financial year, almost £200 million will be taken out of our already squeezed Budget as a result of welfare reform issues. We simply cannot dodge it. We must deal with it and deal with it immediately.”
“Those who took the time to read it will have seen that I argued the case that though issues like flags, parades and the past have caused difficulties to our present circumstances, none was capable of endangering the institutions and bringing them down. The matters of urgency are the way that we operate as an Assembly and Executive, and welfare reform. <BR /> <BR />While there certainly is a case that there are many issues that need to be discussed and where getting agreement is potentially advantageous, it is imperative that we deal with the matters capable of bringing down the Assembly and Executive. Do not fool yourselves about this issue: we simply cannot tolerate a set of circumstances in which £1 billion is to be taken off our Budget.”
“I apologise for the length of the article, which ran into a couple of thousand words.”
“If people want to bury their head in the sand, be in denial about these matters and fool themselves that somehow things could be different if there was another Government at Westminster or that somehow they can put pressure on the coalition Government to change course, they are heading for a set of circumstances that will ensure that the most vulnerable people in our society are worst hit because the health service, the education system, the justice system and all the other elements of government that they need most will not be available to them without very considerable reductions in service.”
“However, all of us know that we are faced with a set of circumstances that arise from issues relating to welfare reform. We are going to be facing costs that simply cannot be taken into account by our Budget. With a £10 billion Budget to carry out all the programmes and processes of government, we cannot contemplate a reduction of over £1 billion a year. It simply cannot be done.”
“There clearly is a distinction between the two comments. If I am quoting the former Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development correctly, she said the situation was:”
“It ill becomes anybody from the Ulster Unionist Party to raise those issues. There are those in this Chamber, and it is regrettable, who put down party political motions of no confidence. Every week, we could be putting down a motion of no confidence in one party or another or their representatives in the Executive. Perhaps we need a bit more mature thinking in the Assembly so that we are not taking up the time of some Committees and taking up time in the Assembly and are getting down to the business that people out there really want us to do: getting more jobs and improving the lot of people who are vulnerable in our society rather than engaging in the party bickering that sometimes goes on in this Chamber.”
“Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, you allowed the Member to make those remarks even though they are a criticism of the Chair. If anybody is misusing the procedures of the House, it is the job of the Chair to call them to order. Clearly, the procedures of the House are being used. The Member may not like the way they are used, but that is an entirely different matter. <BR /> <BR />The use of petitions of concern is one of the many issues that I suspect parties in this House would like to consider further, and some would like to see a review. I am not so tied to any of the procedures in this House that I would stand up and say that they could not be improved. So, I am sure that the Member or his party, in any discussions and negotiations that take place, will raise that if it is one of the key issues for them.”
“To some extent, the argument that it is not fit for purpose is one that perhaps even transcends the Northern Ireland Assembly; I could probably make the same case for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Government, the Westminster Parliament and Europe, all of whom are looking at ways to improve the way they operate. What kind of an Assembly would we be if we missed the opportunity to try to improve the way we do business and get a better outcome for the people we represent?”
“I am pleased to say that relationships in OFMDFM have not descended to the levels of when his party leader and the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party held those positions. This is a matter dealing with the arrangements that govern the modus operandi of the Assembly and Executive. It needs to be borne out by the fact that this was something that was predicted and predictable; we recognised at St Andrews that the unusual arrangements that we were setting up could not be permanent and would need to be reviewed. Therefore, in the St Andrews Agreement and in the subsequent legislation, we made provision for that review. <BR /> <BR />I do not think that anyone in the Chamber — there are certainly very few outside — believes that things are going so swimmingly in the Assembly and Executive that we are not in need of reform.”
“Ultimately, however, it will be for each of the political parties to put forward their own proposals as to the reform of the current structures. It is in everyone's interest to participate in the discussion and deliver the most effective and efficient form of government that we can achieve.”
“With your permission, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I will answer questions 1 and 8 together. The St Andrews Agreement provided for a number of changes to the institutions, which facilitated the restoration of devolution in May 2007. The St Andrews Agreement also provided that the devolved arrangements would be reviewed, and a Standing Committee has been established by the Assembly to carry that out. The deputy First Minister and I have had discussions on such matters on numerous occasions, including as recently as last week. It is hoped that agreement can be reached between the parties on such matters. <BR /> <BR />In my capacity as a party leader, I have made my position clear. I have outlined what I believe needs to be done to deliver more effective and efficient institutions.”
“He pronounced that in Northern Ireland we were moving in the right direction and, though we were facing significant problems, encouraged us all to complete the journey. He expressed the hope that future generations would be able to live in peace and urged us to do our bit to reach that goal. <BR /> <BR />He no longer sits among us, but we are entrusted with his legacy and stirred by his injunction to finish the course and do our bit in securing lasting peace and stability for the land he loved so much.”
“Those of us who stood beside him when he did sing will know how blessed a hope that is. <BR /> <BR />I was present when Ian made what was probably his final major speech, at an event in Hillsborough Castle, where he, along with the deputy First Minister and me, was awarded the International Ellis Island Medal of Honour. Though his strength was waning and he moved slowly to the platform, his message displayed the clarity of his mind and the certainty of his convictions. He told of a time when he knelt at the feet of the saviour of the world and received eternal life. He told us it was this that had driven him all his years and would drive him through the gates of eternity to the land that is fairer than day, where wars will be no more, where darkness shall surrender to eternal light and where we will sit in the majesty of God himself.”
“We will never know, this side of eternity, just how many thousands of lives were changed through his preaching and witness. In a sermon he once preached entitled "Five Minutes After Death", he said:”
“Those of us who knew him best will remember the fun and joy it was to be in his company. Today, we close the page on a long and glorious era, and already politics seems a little less colourful and exciting. Ian has taken his place in the chronicles of Ulster history, alongside the greats of unionism, making our heritage even richer. As a leader of men, a friend of the people, a servant of the state and the undisputed leader of unionism, Ian Paisley outclassed all around him. Ulster will never see the like of him again. He was an exceptional human being. He had a loyal heart, a fidelity to freedom, a passion for democracy and a love for public service. In a storm, he was oak and granite, and in the sunshine, he radiated passion and commitment. <BR /> <BR />Ian's faith shaped his entire life.”
“He had a sincere interest in people's problems no matter who they were or whether their problems were large or small. There are multitudes that have been touched by individual acts of kindness that were carried out away from the gaze of the media or the public. <BR /> <BR />For most of his life, Ian was blessed to have Eileen by his side whether he was battling in the valley or marching on the mountaintop. She gave him decades of love and support. At this sad time, our prayers are with Baroness Paisley, her children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. He was as special to them as they were to him, for his was a close and loving family circle.”
“The stage for his oratory ranged from the lofty debating chambers of the Mother of Parliaments and the European Parliament to countless halls and meeting rooms across the land. He was as much at home speaking on top of a wooden crate or a lorry platform in an open field as he was from the green or red Benches at Westminster, yet he had a special place in his heart for this Chamber. Whether on the opposition Benches or as First Minister on this side, he loved Stormont. He could energise and inspire those around him like no other person I had met before or have met since. <BR /> <BR />He loved Ulster and her people. They returned that love and trust by repeatedly lifting him to the top of the poll in North Antrim and then giving him poll-topping success in five consecutive Northern Ireland-wide European elections.”
“The custom on occasions such as this is to comment and reflect on the life's service and contribution of the person who has passed away, but when the person is someone who, head and shoulders above all others, strode and dominated the public stage for a time beyond the adult life of all of us who sit in the House, it is a daunting task and one that no eloquence or command of detail could, in truth and with fairness, accomplish. <BR /> <BR />Ian Paisley was a remarkable man whose long career in public life has left an indelible mark upon all of us who knew him. Like so many, I was drawn towards politics by the clarity, certainty, strength and conviction of his message. The "Big Man", as he was known, provided firm and decisive leadership when unionism lacked it most and needed it most.”
“Is it not even more absurd that you have on that Committee, as members of the Committee, people who were on the programme making the accusations, and then they sit on the Committee pretending that they are going to impartially judge what the outcome should be?”