Seán Rogers
South Down · Social Democratic and Labour Party · Northern Ireland
“I welcome the opportunity to speak at Final Stage. Coming from South Down, which has ports such as Kilkeel, Ardglass and the neighbouring port of Portavogie, I think that we should not underestimate the importance of the fishing industry, not alone for those areas but for the wider agrifood industry and our economy in general.”
“It quickly became apparent that the Committee did not have the full authority to interrogate the Bill and, due to that, there would be no time to scrutinise the Bill in its entirety.”
“<BR /> <BR />The issues that the Bill initially tried to tackle that could not be tackled due to time constraints and relevant Committee remits still affect our current practices.”
“<BR /> <BR />Finally, regardless of what the Fisheries Bill initially intended, or what it finally became, it will still deliver a better outcome for Northern Ireland at the end of this mandate. In the end, it may not be the catch of the day, but it is a good supper.”
“Maybe that is a model for us today. <BR /> <BR />Reference has been made to the work of the AERC, its various visits and work on women in politics. The key message for me, whether it is the Assembly or local government, is that we need to be a lot more family friendly, not just for the women but for the men as well.”
“They have made a major contribution to building bridges in this land. <BR /> <BR />On a day like this — the Member opposite spoke about this as well — we have to think of women who are suffering today. We think of the women in Nigeria who were kidnapped by Boko Haram, or in refugee camps in Syria, Calais or wherever.”
The complete record
Every one of 523 lines we hold for Seán Rogers, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 11.
“<BR /> <BR />Finally, regardless of what the Fisheries Bill initially intended, or what it finally became, it will still deliver a better outcome for Northern Ireland at the end of this mandate. In the end, it may not be the catch of the day, but it is a good supper.”
“<BR /> <BR />The issues that the Bill initially tried to tackle that could not be tackled due to time constraints and relevant Committee remits still affect our current practices. New legislation that updates areas of sea fisheries, inland fisheries, licensing and penalties must be dealt with, and it is unfortunate that we are unable to deal with them at this time. With the new departmental structure and the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, I am positive that those issues will be dealt with. If elected in the new mandate, I look forward to continuing my engagement with fishermen, the fishing industry and with Assembly colleagues to deliver that new legislation.”
“It quickly became apparent that the Committee did not have the full authority to interrogate the Bill and, due to that, there would be no time to scrutinise the Bill in its entirety. The Bill was then salvaged when the Minister made it clear that the Bill was necessary to comply with EU procedures and to create a parallel legislative provision for Northern Ireland that would apply EU fishery control regulations as soon as they came into effect. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the work between the Minister and the Committee that followed and believe that it was a positive example of legislative cooperation. It now means that our fishermen will not be punished for infractions of European obligations.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak at Final Stage. Coming from South Down, which has ports such as Kilkeel, Ardglass and the neighbouring port of Portavogie, I think that we should not underestimate the importance of the fishing industry, not alone for those areas but for the wider agrifood industry and our economy in general. <BR /> <BR />From the outset, the Bill has sought to modernise enforcement powers and provide greater legal clarity to ensure a balance between the protection of our natural habitat and the development of our fishing business. That balance is critical to ensuring that the industry has a successful future. During Committee Stage, Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage, the Bill changed significantly.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that the success of this Bill is dependent not only on local government but on all Departments robustly applying rural proofing to all aspects of their work?”
“On a lighter note, I have a wife and four daughters, so International Women's Day is nearly every day in our house for my son and me. <BR /> <BR />I want to acknowledge the great work of women, whether mothers or people who have dedicated themselves to the single life, whether in politics or just across the world. I wish the women's caucus every success because most of these women will come back to this Assembly in the next mandate, and I look forward to helping where I can, as a man, in taking their case further.”
“They have made a major contribution to building bridges in this land. <BR /> <BR />On a day like this — the Member opposite spoke about this as well — we have to think of women who are suffering today. We think of the women in Nigeria who were kidnapped by Boko Haram, or in refugee camps in Syria, Calais or wherever. We think also of the women suffering here, who lost a partner or children in the conflict or other horrific events. I think particularly of a young wife, a constituent of mine, who buried her husband last week as the result of a road traffic accident and who is trying to pick up the pieces of her life with four young children. <BR /> <BR />Caitríona spoke about her mother. Where would any of us be without our mothers? My mother is long deceased, but she was a great countrywoman.”
“Maybe that is a model for us today. <BR /> <BR />Reference has been made to the work of the AERC, its various visits and work on women in politics. The key message for me, whether it is the Assembly or local government, is that we need to be a lot more family friendly, not just for the women but for the men as well. Speaking particularly with a rural cap on, and thinking of people like Karen here or our First Minister, Arlene Foster, from County Fermanagh, that issue needs to be taken into consideration. <BR /> <BR />In this year of commemorations, we have to acknowledge the role that women played. In Ireland, we think of the great work of Mary Robinson and, in particular, of Mary McAleese. Could anyone other than Mary McAleese have done it when Queen Elizabeth came to Ireland? I do not think so.”
“I am delighted to acknowledge International Women's Day and speak on the motion. When we look over history — the Member opposite talked about the suffragettes — if it were not for people like Emmeline Pankhurst and the movement to give women the vote, how many of us would be here today? <BR /> <BR />We think of women like Florence Nightingale, the lady with the lamp, the soldiers' friend and so on, and the work that she did. Another nurse was Calamity Jane, who was famous for some of her more adventurous exploits but spent her life attending to smallpox victims in the dark hills of Dakota. <BR /> <BR />We then think of somebody like Mother Teresa, who was among the poor all the life. She said:”
“<BR /> <BR />At Consideration Stage, we stated that it would be beneficial to keep the definitions of "disability" the same as those outlined in the Disability Discrimination Act and the definitions of "gender reassignment" the same as outlined in the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order. We stated at Consideration Stage that we would not support amendment No 14. Having listened to the Minister talk about picking out two motivations, I still contend that it is important that, where there is relevant legislation, we should have a link to it, so we will not be supporting amendment No 2.”
“Therefore, it should allow more flexibility in how incidents are recorded. That would ensure that each incident is treated individually, which can be reflected in the records that are kept. We support amendment No 1. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 2 is similar to amendment No 14 that the Minister tabled at Consideration Stage. However, the Minister did not move that amendment. He noted that removing clause 3(5) would lead to the terms "gender reassignment" and "disability" reverting to their commonly used meanings rather than requiring readers to cross-reference with other legislation. When winding up that debate, Minister O'Dowd said that he would not move amendment No 14 and would consult further with his officials on the matter.”
“Therefore, the sentiment behind amendment No 1 is much the same as the UUP amendment that was made at Consideration Stage. It appears that the Minister has considered the amendment that was made and wants to edit it slightly to say that a brief description of the nature of the incident must be included in the report instead of stating the methods. That may allow for a more rounded body of information about incidents of bullying to be collected. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 1 changes "methods of bullying" to:”
“Amendment No 1 seeks to remove those words and replace them with:”
“We always hear that school days are the best days of our lives. We want all our children to be happy at school because it is within that environment that they achieve their potential, with no fear of bullying. If there is bullying, we want it dealt with effectively. We are coming to the end of this Bill's passage, and that is what it attempts to do. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 1 relates to an amendment that was made at Consideration Stage, tabled by Sandra Overend and Danny Kennedy. We supported that amendment. The UUP amendment sought to ensure that, when incidents of bullying are recorded, the methods of bullying must also be included. As it stands, the Bill states that a record must:”
“Thank you for that answer. Given the visit of the Prime Minister last weekend and his failure to acknowledge that 23 June is not a great time for a referendum, does OFMDFM have any plans to meet him to discuss the deal that he got out of Europe?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member agree with me that St Columbanus' College, Bangor — where he, Mr Weir and I recently attended a prize-giving — is a great example of shared education but also a great example of integrated education with a small i?”
“I believe that, in our current context, that was entirely appropriate in order to ensure that Northern Ireland is not punished for infractions. Furthermore, I believe that, while other aspects of the Bill remain entirely necessary, they must be scrutinised fully to allow for better legislation.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee agreed to oppose the Question that clauses 7 to 18 stand part of the Bill. Clauses 7 to 9 relate to penalties under other Acts — the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 and the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 — and offences. Clauses 10 to 13 relate to inland fisheries, which fall outside the Committee's remit. Clauses 14 and 15 relate to fixed penalty notices, and clauses 16 to 18 are general clauses related to the Bill. Finally, the Committee agreed that it would support clause 19, the short title, which is simply a requirement to ensure the Bill's progress. <BR /> <BR />Many may be surprised to see the Bill, which, if I may say so, seems to be thoroughly gutted, to the point that it now focuses entirely on EU obligations and enforcements.”
“Clauses 1 to 5 relate to sea fishing, the size of fish, the provision of licences and joint enforcement procedures. <BR /> <BR />The Committee determined that it would support the Question that clause 6 stand part of the Bill, while not specifically taking a position on the amendments. As noted, the clause relates to the enforcement of EU rules and amends section 30(1) of Fisheries Act 1981 so that it applies both to the enforcement of EU restrictions and enforceable EU obligations. The clause essentially makes it an offence to defy such restrictions or obligations. The amendments to clause 6 clear up the language and create a new clarity. In particular, amendment Nos 1 to 3 expand the language of the Bill by moving from "boat" to "vessel", broadening the meaning of fishing vehicles.”
“<BR /> <BR />Fortunately, it was determined by the Committee and the Minister that that aspect of the Bill must be passed and, as such, the Committee agreed to focus its scrutiny on clauses 6 and 19 and forgo that all other clauses stand part of the Bill. I believe that that was an appropriate decision when we consider that, following the departmental restructure in the new mandate, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA) and its subsequent Committee will have the appropriate remit to deal with all aspects of fisheries, both inland and at sea. I can only hope that I am part of the next Assembly and continue to speak for the people of South Down on this very important matter. Regardless, the Committee determined that it would oppose the Question that clauses 1 to 5 stand part of the Bill.”
“The Minister, however, explained that the Fisheries Bill included one crucial aspect that needed to be passed as soon as possible and that a failure to do so would be detrimental to Northern Ireland as a whole. The Minister revealed that the Bill was not as robust as it could be, having omitted references to aquaculture entirely; she noted that that was to ensure a smooth passage. As the Bill faltered, it was revealed that the Bill was necessary to comply with EU procedures and to create a parallel legislative provision for Northern Ireland that would apply EU fishery control regulations as soon as they came into effect. Clause 6 brings such provisions to Northern Ireland.”
“Therefore, the loss of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure scrutiny role left the Bill in a precarious position, and the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development believed that a Bill on fisheries would be better served in the next mandate under the expanded remit of the new Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.”
“During the Committee process, it quickly became apparent that aspects of the Bill such as inland fisheries fall outside the remit of the Committee and that, as such, it would not be appropriate for the Committee to scrutinise related clauses. To make up for that, the Committee called on the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure to undertake scrutiny of the clauses on inland fisheries, which are clauses 10 to 13. Unfortunately, it became apparent that that Committee would not be able to complete proper scrutiny in such a limited time frame. <BR /> <BR />This highlighted another problem for the Committee, which was that, this late in the mandate, there was simply not be enough time for the Bill to pass through the Chamber with the necessary amount of scrutiny and that any further delay would cause the Bill to falter and fail entirely.”
“The Bill sought to enshrine the use of fixed administrative penalties for fisheries offences and to bring Northern Ireland more in line with Britain. I warned against not striking the proper balance between protecting our fish stocks and protecting our industry. I was also concerned about the potential for new legislation either to create a bureaucratic nightmare or to be overly zealous in the enforcement of fines. Those are concerns that I was happy to bring to the Committee's interrogation of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Legislation is a bit like fishing. It is a tricky business, and, every so often, it will surprise you.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill, and I further commend the work of the Committee staff, the Committee and the Minister for bringing forth the alterations and amendments today and for the overall work that has been put into the Bill. <BR /> <BR />At Second Stage, I supported the broad principles of the Bill, as I believe that the fishing industry remains a crucial aspect of Northern Ireland's agrifood economy and one that is vital to my constituency of South Down. The Bill then at least sought to modernise enforcement powers to create a more coherent approach and to provide legal clarity to ensure a balance between the protection of our natural habitat and the development of our fishing industry.”
“Thank you, Minister, for your answers thus far. I, too, welcome that good news. Can you be specific about when you expect to get the findings from the public inquiry into the Ballynahinch bypass?”
“Thanks, Mr Speaker. A lot of communities have suffered because of cross-border crime, none more so than the farming community through the loss of livestock and machinery. What is being done to address that?”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. I acknowledge the great work of the aerospace industry and how it contributes to our economy, particularly B/E Aerospace in my constituency of South Down. The Minister talked about the competitive rate of corporation tax. In the refresh of the economic strategy, has he considered that we could be on the edge of western Europe or an integral part of Europe after the referendum in June?”
“It is about fish kills. Thanks for your answer, Minister. What do you see as the main cause of fish kills, and, following on from what the previous Member said, what action is there, beyond issuing advice, to minimise them?”
“They include Departments, district councils, the Chief Constable of the PSNI and health and social care trusts. As discussed earlier, those will be changeable through amendment No 3. Amendment No 14 would alter the long title of the Bill, along the same lines as amendment No 1. As such, it would change the phrasing of "consider" to "have due regard to". As with previous amendments, I support those two amendments. <BR /> <BR />The SDLP supports the majority of the amendments, but we reserve the right to consider future amendments at the next stage.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 12 relates to clause 5 and the commencement of the legislation. It seeks to ensure that the legislation is in operation no later than 1 June 2017. I agree with the amendment's sentiments, which are to ensure that the legislation is not left to wallow and will be in operation to serve the needs of rural communities as soon as possible. That clearly shows that the Assembly is dedicated to rural proofing and recognises the importance of rural needs. <BR /> <BR />The final two amendments were tabled by the Committee and relate to two of the earlier amendments. As such, I have already spoken on their general function. Amendment No 13 would introduce a new schedule that states that the Act will consider the organisations listed as being public authorities.”
“The operation of those amendments will ensure greater consideration from organisations and greater progress in rural needs development. <BR /> <BR />The Minister's amendment No 10 will place a direct duty on the Minister to make a statement to the Assembly following publication of the rural needs annual report. That will allow the Minister to outline the content of the report and demonstrate the strengths and weaknesses in policy development. That will ensure greater accountability and give a greater level of recognition to rural needs. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 11 refers to clause 4, which relates to the cooperation between the Department and other bodies. The amendment would create tighter language in that regard. It would place a clear duty on the Department to secure cooperation and exchange of information between public authorities.”
“The Minister's amendment No 8 further seeks to ensure that such information under clause 3 is in the public domain. The amendment clears up language — the wording is to change from "prepare" to "publish" — to ensure that material is compiled and brought forward publicly. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 9 would place a new duty on the Department to prepare an annual report assessing how each public authority has considered rural needs. In combination with the Minister's amendment No 8, that would mean that the Department must publish that assessment. That would be useful, as it would allow public authorities to review their practices and see where they are succeeding or failing to meet rural needs and where they can improve their facilitation of such needs.”
“The UUP's amendment No 7 relates to clause 3 and, I believe, seeks to ensure that the information compiled by public authorities on their duty to consider rural needs appears in their annual reports, which will subsequently appear in the Department's own annual report.”
“The UUP amendment uses softer language but is more specific on who needs guidance — the relevant policymakers — and introduces the need for appropriate training. <BR /> <BR />Training would clear up the confusion on how to develop, implement and review rural-proofing policies. Arguably, the UUP amendment is superior, as it includes a specific need for training, which is crucial to ensuring that rural needs are being identified and dealt with appropriately. <BR /> <BR />Clause 3 imposes a statutory duty on public authorities to compile information and develop reports based on the data.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 6, tabled by Mrs Dobson and Mr Swann, relates to clause 2 and seeks to replace the entirety of clause 2(a). In operation, it is similar to the Minister's amendment but instead places an emphasis on the need for the Department to provide training on identifying and meeting rural needs to all staff who develop and implement policies related to rural proofing. There is therefore a bit of a conflict between amendment Nos 5 and 6. Amendment No 5 will place a harder duty on the Department to provide a person with guidance, advice and information on rural needs. However, it remains broad, and presumably guidance, advice and training could manifest themselves as training.”
“The amendment will ensure that the Bill will contain all relevant organisations and people necessary for its operation and will ensure that any future Act is not constrained. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 4 relates to the previous amendment to allow for any transitional provision that the Department may find appropriate to the operation of clause 1(2). Amendment No 5 has been proposed by the Minister and is an amendment to clause 2, which seeks to provide guidance, advice and information on rural needs and the proper implementation of rural-proofing policy. The amendment will change the wording from "may" to "must", bringing in tighter language and placing a direct duty on the Department to provide guidance, advice and information on rural needs.”
“Clause 1 relates to the duty of public authorities to consider rural needs, and amendment No 1 will replace the word "consider" with the words "due regard" and should ensure that public authorities place appropriate weight on determining rural needs. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 2 will replace the original outline of a public authority so that the schedule can determine what will be considered a public authority under the Act. That will help to determine specific organisations and people. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 3 will introduce a review mechanism under clause 1(2) for what constitutes an appropriate public authority under the schedule, to be enacted at least every three years. It will give the power to amend the schedule to replace, remove or modify any entry in it.”
“DARD must be willing to step forward to enforce rural proofing so that it is not simply given lip-service but that all Departments and bodies fully respect it in policy formulation. <BR /> <BR />Moving on to the amendments, let me say that I do not believe that they are in any way controversial. In many ways, they serve to secure accountability, create greater clarity and overall improve the operation of the future Act. There are 14 amendments, six from the Agriculture Committee, three from the Minister, and five from our UUP colleagues. Amendment Nos 1 to 4 have been put forward by the Committee and seek to modify clause 1.”
“I believe that the amendments go some distance to modify the Bill to guarantee that those intentions are met. <BR /> <BR />At the previous stage, the SDLP voiced its concern about the availability of rural research and how subsequent databases can be used to ensure accountability and improvements in rural proofing. In that regard, I welcome the Minister's amendments, such as amendment No 8, which will ensure that annual reports are published for the public's benefit. Without an annual report, it becomes difficult to evaluate services on offer. If you cannot evaluate services, how can you improve them? <BR /> <BR />Regardless of the outcome of this stage today, I reiterate that clear communication from DARD is vital for the success of rural proofing and to ensure that communities are protected.”
“I thank the Member for his contribution, and I reiterate that point. As the previous Member mentioned, our youth have either migrated or emigrated in their hundreds and thousands. In times of austerity, it seems to be the rural areas that get the biggest pinch, whether that is through the closure of our rural schools or of accident and emergency facilities at night, which is the case in my local hospital, the Downe. Rural areas get hit very hard. <BR /> <BR />The Bill is relatively short and, in broad strokes, seeks to enforce the duty on government and public authorities to consider that rural needs be enshrined in the guidance required to ensure that the duty is upheld and that the data is compiled to assist in determining rural-proofing progress.”
“That is in keeping with the Assembly's belief that policy decisions must be properly proofed to consider their impact on rural areas and communities and, when appropriate, be adjusted to mitigate any damaging outcomes. At the previous stage, my colleague outlined the SDLP position, and today I will echo that and state my belief that there should be a strict adherence to rural-proofing policies and that the Assembly, through legislation, must ensure that every Department considers adverse impacts on rural communities when deciding policy.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Consideration Stage of the Rural Needs Bill. I look forward to working alongside the Committee for the remainder of the mandate as Deputy Chair. Unfortunately, I was not in that position during Second Stage, but, fortunately, my colleague Joe Byrne was able to voice the SDLP's position on the Bill. <BR /> <BR />If I may, I will give a brief idea of my overall feelings on the purpose of the Bill. I assure the Chamber that that will be relevant to my thoughts on the proposed amendments. The Rural Needs Bill seeks to ensure that public authorities and central and local government consider rural needs when making policy decisions.”
“As I said during the Second Stage debate, I hope that it will help the Department to become strategic in the delivery of shared education and that it will get shared education into the Department's DNA.”
“Once that is disseminated, it will help other schools. This amendment helps to keep the focus on not only shared education but on high-quality shared education that can be disseminated to other schools. <BR /> <BR />The final amendment was tabled by Sinn Féin and is similar to amendment No 8. The SDLP will have to wait to see what way amendment Nos 8 and 9 go. I have a wee bit of concern about the duty on bodies to "consider shared education". If amendment Nos 8 and 9 on the duty "to promote, encourage and facilitate" go through, we would be quite happy to support it because it expands that quite a bit. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the progress of the Bill.”
“Following on from this recommendation, the Committee agreed to table an amendment under the Committee Chair's name to require the Department to review and report on shared education every two years. I agree with the proposal that the Department should be obliged to report on the extent to which shared education has improved educational attainment; the attitudes of children and young people to persons of different social and other backgrounds; and the effective and efficient use of resources, including the ICT infrastructure. A point that I really want to make is that there are great opportunities within the ICT infrastructure to develop shared education and increase participation in sharing in schools and relevant organisations. When we get the report of each review, we will be able to see the good practice that is going on.”
“Amendment No 13 was tabled by the Minister and introduces a new clause that gives the Department the power to form a company. During Committee Stage, the Department mentioned the Strule Shared Education Campus in Omagh and said that an amendment would mean that a company could act as the owner of the school buildings. The different ownership models could cause challenges to the governors of shared education campuses. I believe that this may help to resolve any ownership issues that arise. <BR /> <BR />I come to amendment No 14. During Committee Stage, many stakeholders mentioned the need for the review of shared education. I think that that is fundamental.”
“We will wait to hear what is said on that amendment, particularly by Mr Lunn, before we make up our minds. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 11 was tabled by the Chair of the Committee and removes the Department of Education from the listed bodies that may encourage and facilitate shared education. Amendment No 12 is linked to amendment No 11 and adds "any sectoral body" to the list of bodies that may encourage and facilitate shared education. That is proactive, because another sectoral body could come along in a few years' time. The amendment also defines a sectoral body as one that:”
“Amendment No 10 puts a duty on the Department to prescribe, by regulation, criteria to be met by relevant providers of shared education. This would set out how many hours of shared education each participant is entitled to. While I understand what is behind the amendment, I think that it is a bit restrictive at this stage. It is important that we encourage schools to get involved in shared education, and it could be very difficult for a primary school in an isolated rural area to meet the criteria if a particular number of hours were prescribed. Does a school qualify if it provides two hours per week, 10 hours per week or just something after school? I understand the spirit of it, but it is rather prescriptive at this stage. The amendment would ensure that funding for shared education was used purposefully.”
“We are supportive of that amendment. During Committee Stage, many groups supported the aim of placing the duty on the Department.”