Dolores Kelly
Upper Bann · Social Democratic and Labour Party · Northern Ireland
“The legislation is only as good as its enforcement. It will be enabled by the sentences that judges and others may hand down, by cultural shifts and by changes in behaviour because of the penalties in place as a consequence. <BR /> <BR />We need to do much more with cybercrime units. We need proper resources for them.”
“It also covers the background to the Good Friday Agreement and the creation of this Assembly, as well as subsequent political negotiations over the years. The major figures and events over the past 100 years have been reflected in a way that ensures that all political perspectives of the Assembly are reflected.”
“I thank the Member for his question. An update on the current COVID-19 health and safety measures was issued to all users of Parliament Buildings on 1 March 2022. The update set out the current arrangements for ensuring the continuing safety of everyone in the Building.”
“I thank the Member for his question. I am pleased to inform him that the review of the display of artefacts is at a very advanced stage. The Member may have seen the letter that the Speaker issued on behalf of the Assembly Commission earlier today.”
“<BR /> <BR />As a member of the Policing Board, I receive updates on a regular basis from the National Crime Agency (NCA), which has determined that between 16,000 and 23,000 children and young people are at risk from sexual offences and grooming online. Those are horrendous figures, and that must be a nightmare scenario for any family.”
“Thank you for your answer, Minister. You rightly outlined a lot of medical and therapeutic interventions, but many children are suffering post-traumatic stress-type symptoms or, indeed, social isolation as a consequence of COVID.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,097 lines we hold for Dolores Kelly, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 22.
“In sporting events, it will contribute to the experience of people using the stadia and watching the sport, because these events are about more than watching; they are, in the broadest sense, a leisure pursuit. I think the Member has taken good account of many of the concerns raised by a broad gamut of stakeholders. <BR /> <BR />I have spoken privately to Mrs Cochrane in relation to the residents' concerns and have sought and got assurances from the management at Kingspan that there will be proactive engagement with local residents, because their views have to be taken account of. Whilst I recognise that that cannot be in the Bill, I strongly urge Kingspan to live up to the commitments given to the Committee and the proposer of the Bill.”
“It is the regret of my party that the amendment tabled by the Committee in relation to Drumbo Park and other such stadia and our party's amendment to deal with the under-18s issue were found not competent within the confines of this legislation. I hope that a new Assembly mandate will see an overall licensing Bill brought forward that would bring us more in keeping with the times. It is some seven years since my party colleagues Social Development Ministers Margaret Ritchie and Alex Attwood consulted on an extensive redraft of the licensing regulations. Unfortunately, that has been sitting with the Executive now for the past number of years. <BR /> <BR />It is fair to say that this Bill will assist stadia in attracting international events.”
“I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this private Member's Bill. I congratulate the Member on all her hard work in getting the Bill to this stage. I also congratulate the Committee who assisted in terms of timing. Given the workload of the Committee, that was no mean feat. I congratulate the Chairperson on ensuring that the Bill got through. <BR /> <BR />Unlike Mr Allister, my disappointment was that the Member had to put forward a private Member's Bill. When it comes to licensing, we in Northern Ireland lag greatly behind others and are disenfranchising large sections of the licensed trade and, indeed, tourism.”
“The deputy First Minister will, I am sure, agree with me that, when international investors look to locate here, they want to look at quality-of-life issues as well and the availability of public services. Does he join me in calling for greater investment in our public services, across health and education, as those are key factors that investors consider when looking to establish a business in the North?”
“You are quite welcome to do that on any occasion, and, indeed, you are quite welcome to invest some of your cash into those constituencies, which are in great need. Minister, my point is on the construction industry, where we have seen a great downturn. Therefore, Minister, given your plea on jobs and your very passionate demand for employment, regardless of where the people come from or where the need is, would you not agree that the Minister for Social Development should step up to the plate and start building houses, particularly for the people in North and West Belfast, who have waited for far, far too long in an area where there are empty sites owned by the Housing Executive, and yet, for some obscure reason — or maybe not — the Minister will not build any houses on those sites?”
“<BR /> <BR />When we look at last week's report on the continuing segregation in the housing sector, we see that it is important that we provide opportunities for young people to meet those from other community or religious backgrounds, in order to promote a better society, in which people have better understanding and tolerance of each other. Some of the principles of shared education go some way to addressing that, but I recognise that it is a long process, and there is not going to be a transformation overnight.”
“I welcome the Committee Chair's intervention, and it provides some clarity. As I said in my remarks last night, I was not a member of the Committee when some of the points were being deliberated. Nonetheless, it is fair to reflect on the future of shared education. One of the principles of shared education is that there is an onus being placed on pupils to integrate, so meeting outside of school is also promoted, and that is why outside clubs and sports also have a role to play in providing an opportunity for our young people to meet.”
“The old exchanges between Catholic and Protestant schools were more about running after the funding than they were about any sort of cultural or societal change to wanting to be educated together.”
“The definition of "shared education" and the proposed new clause — amendment No 1 — setting out the purpose of shared education are things that I welcome and support. <BR /> <BR />I want to hear more from Mr Lunn about amendment No 2 in order to distil the argument around how he and his party view that change. I also want to listen to what the Minister has to say in his summing-up. Our party is broadly supportive of shared education. We recognise that we could not remain in a situation in which nothing was being done, either financially or for the good of society by promoting a shared future, and, indeed, reconciliation. However, I do not think that there should be just the gloss of shared education.”
“I think that we are living in a more diverse society, and that is something that I very much welcome. It is something that we all need to recognise and embrace. I understand the principles behind shared education. I know that the Assembly, 18 years on from the Good Friday Agreement, has neglected the integrated sector somewhat. Some such remarks were contained in Mr Justice Treacy's judgement last year, but I also recognise the realities of the society that we live in. <BR /> <BR />Some talk about people being on a journey. We all know that wanting the best educational outcome for our children is at the heart of parental choice. Shared education opportunities assist some people on that journey, but they also reflect the challenging financial environment that education and all other public sectors have to work in.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill's Further Consideration Stage. I have listened with interest to some of the debate on Protestant, Roman Catholic and "other", and I would be interested to hear from the Minister, if possible, what difference it would make to the legislation or, more particularly, to the resources available to such schools that have a higher proportion of "other" pupils as opposed to Catholic and Protestant pupils.”
“On behalf of the SDLP, I support the order. As others have said and as the Chairperson of the Committee outlined, there was considerable debate around the order and the pros and cons of supporting it. Public confidence in how charities are run and in their accountability and transparency is of the utmost importance. Despite these austere times, people in Northern Ireland still contribute to charities substantially more, per head of population, than any other region. Therefore public confidence in charities and in the regulation of charities is of the utmost importance. At the same time, I recognise that there has to be some flexibility to take account of the different types of charities and those associated with Churches. I support the order.”
“Those have been taken account of in the legislation as far as practicable. I congratulate the Minister and his predecessor on their work and on the collaborative approach taken by Departmental officials. I also thank Committee staff for their assistance to the Committee in its scrutiny of the Bill. These amendments will produce a much better Bill that certainly reflects the concerns raised by stakeholders.”
“On behalf of the SDLP, I will speak in support of the Bill. It is a welcome piece of legislation. As the Chair of the Committee outlined, concerns were raised about antisocial behaviour, the sharing of information and some of the definitions.”
“Yes, the Minister did visit, and I am very grateful to him for spending so much time with the largely voluntary board of Shankill (Lurgan) Community Projects. I am pleased to hear that he will keep his eye on the ball with the progress of this case. There are 150 people in the area of north Lurgan on a waiting list. Does the Minister agree with me that it is of the utmost urgency that the Housing Executive and all others involved in this case put maximum effort into ensuring that these apartments — I think there are 18 in total, with five requiring remedial work — are put back into immediate use to alleviate the severe housing crisis in north Lurgan?”
“As I pointed out, there has been good collaborative working and a bit of listening has been done. I welcome that balance. This is the way to go to get good legislation. If there is a bit of compromise, everybody gets what they want. It is certainly very good legislation overall.”
“I will keep it even briefer, Mr Speaker, and just say that I welcome the Minister's comments on clause 83. He has reflected on the Committee's concerns.”
“I will cut back later on then, Mr Speaker. Apologies for that. In conclusion — I need not draw this out needlessly — I very much welcome the legislation, the passage of the Bill, the scrutiny and the cooperation and collaboration between the Department, the Committee and, indeed, the stakeholders.”
“Sorry; I beg your pardon. I am ahead of myself.”
“We believe that giving councils the power to share information amongst themselves for the purposes of carrying out statutory functions will prove to be beneficial to the smooth running of the new HMO system. We all know how the Data Protection Act has in some ways disabled the sharing of information amongst statutory agencies. I think this will give greater clarity about the responsibilities of councils in sharing information to have better safeguards for tenants and local communities. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 34 and 35 are related to amendment No 33 and insert a new clause into the relevant —”
“<BR /> <BR />On the other amendments in group 3, while there was significant concern from landlords about the amount of information on the HMO register linking them to their properties, the SDLP believes that access to such information is a matter of public interest, and we agree with the Committee's position that sufficient information should be made available to ensure that residents can address concerns regarding HMOs. The amendments seem to be a good middle ground in ensuring the safety of landlords and their families whilst providing a suitable amount of information to those with a genuine interest in the property. I note as well that statutory bodies will still have access to the full register. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 33 inserts a new clause relating to the sharing of information between councils.”
“I also welcome some of the concerns that have been raised by landlords. They play an important role in providing a housing mix at a time when there are huge numbers of people on waiting lists. That does not, as others have said, apply just to students. We all know the high costs of accommodation, particularly in our cities. Therefore, we have to listen to the landlord fraternity as well to ensure that people will provide accommodation not only to students but to workers and professionals living in our city centres in particular.”
“Both the registration of landlords and the additional accountability mechanisms in respect of HMOs will make our jobs and the jobs of others much easier when trying to secure property, and they will ensure that tenants work with the local community and are integrated well into it.”
“I will speak on one or two amendments in particular, but the Chair did an excellent job of detailing and explaining the Committee consideration of the amendments. We particularly welcome amendment Nos 1 and 2. Amendment No 1 is technical. We are also very supportive of amendment No 2, which is aimed at people who have another address that, arguably, is their main residence. That is particularly the case with seasonal and migrant workers, who are afforded much better protection. We also welcome the fit-and-proper-person test, which is critical. We all know, as representatives, how difficult it is to track down landlords at times.”
“I join others in thanking the Committee and departmental staff for their assistance during the passage and consideration of the Bill. Like others, we think that the Bill will make landlords more accountable and protect tenants and the communities in which the HMOs are situated. I would like to put on record our thanks to Minister Morrow and his predecessor, Minister Storey, who tried to work alongside the Committee and have listened not only to the Committee's concerns but to those raised by stakeholders, who also played an important part in enabling us to better understand the impact of the legislation and, indeed, the reality of living in HMO areas. <BR />Our party supports the Bill. We think that it has been a good piece of work.”
“We all know about this issue, if not from our own years at school then from constituents who have come to us because of the different approaches to bullying in many schools and the sense of powerlessness not only among the families of the victims of bullying but among boards of governors. I hope that this sets a new standard in Northern Ireland and that, when we teach our young people, it will hopefully be something that they live by and endorse as they enter adult life.”
“We support amendment No 13. However, we will not support amendment No 14 because we believe that it is beneficial to keep included in the Bill the definitions of disability as outlined in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and gender reassignment as outlined in the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976. <BR /> <BR />We are minded to support amendment No 2, although I have listened carefully to some of the arguments about the imbalance of power. I have some concerns about some of the scenarios outlined. I think that the Minister, who I thought maybe should be the bully in the relationship, should be named. I hope that he can assure his wife that he was not, at any stage, referring to her and how she can handle him. <BR /> <BR />This is a good piece of work by the Assembly.”
“I welcome the clarification from the Minister and the Committee Chair on amendment No 7 and appreciate that, if it is supported, amendment No 8 might not even be moved. We support amendment Nos 9, 10 and 11. On amendment No 12, we want to listen a bit more to some of the arguments about the list of motivations currently included in clause 3. At this stage, we do not believe that amendment No 12, which the Minister has tabled, is as strong as what was originally drafted in the Bill. However, before deciding and voting on it, we want to hear some of the arguments.”
“I also urge further debate with parents and with the children themselves to give an understanding of the implications of bullying in schools and how there will be zero tolerance. <BR /> <BR />As I read through many of the amendments, I saw that there seemed to be a reversion to the three Rs — only, in this case, it is reporting, recording and reviewing. We are somewhat disappointed that the review time frame is longer than we would have liked; we would have liked a much shorter one. On reporting, I do not think that it is onerous to add to the responsibilities of a teacher the task of recording the nature of an alleged bullying incident. <BR /> <BR />I will say for the record that we support amendment Nos 1, 3, 4 and 5. My earlier comment about a shorter time frame related to amendment No 6.”
“I am grateful for the guidance of my colleague Mr Seán Rogers, who served on the Committee throughout the passage of the Bill. I want to put on record our party's thanks to the Minister and the Department for the engagement that he and other stakeholders had with the Committee. The fact that the Minister has tabled so many amendments shows how he has listened during the passage of the Bill. The comments from around the House show that it is a Bill that all Members largely support. It should, I hope, lead to behavioural and attitudinal change amongst our schoolchildren. To that end, I am sure that the Minister will live up to the commitment that, I understand, he gave to the Committee on training and development opportunities for teaching staff on the implementation of the legislation.”
“I thank the Minister for his answer, particularly the latter points. Minister, you will be aware that there are some 88 gangs here in the North dealing drugs. Of course, we saw the recent gangland violence in Dublin. What reassurance and information can you give to the House around the tie-up and whether the models of Mafia-type violence in Dublin will spill onto our streets here in the North?”
“I thank the Minister for his answer, and I am sure that, like me, he laments the loss of the late Una Crudden who was a great advocate of cervical screening. In relation to the vaccination programme in schools, what has the uptake been like among young women?”
“I just have one question for the Alliance Party. If it was so keen and adamant in wanting to bring forward legislation around abortion, why did it not put it in the Bill? Why has it done it by the back door, through amendments?”
“I want to make it clear that our party has not been whipped. The Members here will be going through the Lobbies on the matter of their conscience.”
“Will the Minister give way for one second?”
“I do not want to add much more. I just want to say that, yet again, the families and Ms Ewart have brought the debate to the fore, and that is quite right. It is right that we should get clarity on the guidance and, for that, we owe her a debt of gratitude.”
“I commend the parties for being very measured in their contributions thus far. As I said at the outset, I think that all Members want to show compassion to those who have had to make difficult choices. Let us be very clear: the choices need to be based on informed decisions given by the experts in the field. The experts in the field are the clinicians and the legal experts who will help to guide them. I hope that the First Minister, Arlene Foster, will set that out very clearly in her terms of reference. I know that the public in Northern Ireland have stood against the extension of the 1967 Act to Northern Ireland for decades. People should be clear what the amendments would mean in practice.”
“Sorry, I missed that point a bit because I thought that my whole argument was based on the premise of the physical and mental health and well-being of the mother. <BR /> <BR />This is a debate about which many people can get very passionate and emotive.”
“To the parties whose Members are proposing the amendments, I ask those who are going to support the amendments to reflect very carefully on the arguments that I and others have made in our contributions to the debate this evening.”
“I was a health professional, and one of the key standards and ethics that I was trained in, and which I hope I have lived my life by, is to be non-judgemental. I am not going to judge anyone because, thankfully, I have never had to make those decisions or choices. If the Member is trying to suggest that I have somehow got confused about what we are debating this evening, what I am trying to explain to Mr Agnew and the proposers of these amendments is that it is they who are confused. What they are proposing tonight in their amendments goes far beyond the 1967 Act because it places in statute the element of choice, rather than the mental or physical well-being of the mother.”
“<BR /> <BR />For all its many problems, the language of the 1967 Act is predicated on the mother's physical and mental health or on the child having a serious handicap. The language of choice is absent from that legislation. In contrast, the proposed amendment places the mother's choice, at proposed clause 44A(2), as the central and deciding factor, assuming that she is given a diagnosis of fatal foetal abnormality. I give way to Mr Green.”
“I want to finish my point; I will give way shortly. Legislators may believe that these proposed amendments to the Justice (No. 2) Bill are a discrete and minor development of the existing law, but they introduce a critical difference to the underlying philosophy of abortion legislation, which will undoubtedly be focused on by those who seek greater change. I refer in particular to the introduction, for the first time in UK law, of the choice of the woman who is facing a diagnosis of fatal foetal abnormality, bearing in mind, of course, that there is no such definition; there is no such condition. That represents, by any standard, a fundamental philosophical departure in abortion legislation.”
“It is noteworthy that the Act is predicated on the basis that two medical practitioners have formed the opinion that continuance of the pregnancy would involve injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman, or that the child would suffer from a serious handicap. In reality, the opinion of the doctors has become, in most cases, an administrative exercise, and one can legitimately state that Great Britain permits abortion on demand.”
“That is pretty ridiculous. We are all old enough and wise enough to know that, in the past, clinicians made decisions around the survival of the mother in terms of her physical and mental well-being. It was never about the choice of whether to carry on with a pregnancy. It was based on the mental and physical well-being of the mother. That is one of the key differences in the interpretation of these amendments, which we have been advised on by clinicians and legal experts. <BR /> <BR />I will share with you some concerns that people have raised in relation to the 1967 Act, which some are portraying is not what these amendments reflect. The effect of the 1967 Act in Great Britain has been to vastly increase, in a manner not intended by legislators, the number of abortions carried out there.”
“I told Mr Dickson that I would give way first.”
“Our decision tonight is also based on the advice that we have received from clinicians and legal experts. Clinicians are very clear that the guidelines need to be amended. There needs to be greater clarity around the guidelines. That is why we call upon the DUP Health Minister to publish those guidelines without delay. We welcome the initiative of First Minister Arlene Foster in setting up a working group that will listen to the people at the coalface, to the women having to make those difficult choices, informed by clinicians and by legal experts. We will play whatever role we have to play in assisting that working group to come to the right conclusions.”
“I will perhaps later, but I am just getting into the flow. <BR /> <BR />The 1967 Act has grown quite considerably in Great Britain. <BR /> <BR />At the outset, I say that, as a member of the SDLP, along with my SDLP colleagues, I have always been in a pro-life party. I do not think that we will be taking any lectures regarding violence against the person, unborn or otherwise, from Sinn Féin. There has never been any difficulty in relation to the sanctity of the life of the unborn child when the IRA planted bombs that blew up pregnant women. I will leave it there, because I do not want to be diverted from the main topic. <BR /> <BR />My values as a member of the SDLP are not just formed by the values of the SDLP and it being a pro-life party, nor indeed is our decision this evening to vote against these amendments.”
“It would be remiss of any of us to contribute to tonight's debate without putting on the record our sincere compassion and heartfelt sympathy to Sarah Ewart and the other families who have been faced with such life-changing decisions. But there is an old legal maxim that hard choices do not make good legislation. We are being led to believe by Sinn Féin, Alliance, the Green Party and NI21 that this is not about the extension of the 1967 Act. Those people quite clearly —”
“Will the Member join me in commending those staff, who, after having suffered a physical assault or attack, very rarely put in a claim against the trust or, indeed, the patient?”
“It is prudent to learn from other jurisdictions and to look at the implementation of the law to — I paraphrase Mr McCartney — see if it does what it says on the tin. I certainly have no objection to that. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the cross-community consensus on giving the police more powers to better protect victims of domestic violence. I look forward to the next mandate, when, hopefully, the incoming Justice Minister will be able to put the provisions into law.”