Fearghal McKinney
South Belfast · Social Democratic and Labour Party · Northern Ireland
“We need to do everything we can to bring investment and job opportunities. A prosperity strategy should also include a massive programme of workforce training and skills enhancement.”
“In particular, we want the Programme for Government to adopt a much more joined-up style of government that delivers much greater accountability and transparency and will itself say that it wants Northern Ireland to work.”
“<BR /> <BR />We can point to collective achievements — local government reform among them — but just months ago the echoes of our past threatened our political future, reinforcing the challenges to our delicate political system that the Good Friday Agreement could never have foreseen.”
“Creating much better social cohesion and integration must be another Programme for Government requirement. <BR /> <BR />Health reform, job creation, better infrastructure, creating world-class education and tackling social deprivation are issues on which the SDLP is not prepared to compromise.”
“There are many big challenges facing Northern Ireland, perhaps the biggest of which is to get people into work. It is our job to create the infrastructural and educational opportunities and to maximise those opportunities.”
“It is our job to ensure that our people can and should dare to dream that life can be better; that our children will not be forced to leave these shores for the promise of work in Australia or America because of a failing economy — I referenced the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's latest research; that our health service provides a service th…”
The complete record
Every one of 708 lines we hold for Fearghal McKinney, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 15.
“This death is a huge blow to all of us who have stood against those with such murderous intent. My thoughts and the thoughts of all in the SDLP are with Adrian's family and friends at this difficult time. Today, we are reminded once again that, despite our differences, we are one society and one people, united and indivisible in the face of terror. We stand as democrats against such terror. They will not succeed. <BR /> <BR />I simply ask the Minister to directly convey to Adrian's family and friends our thoughts this evening.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Tonight, we are asked to back a split decision in terms of the additional consultation. Does the Member agree that the conditions that the Minister has pointed to — the fact that there is potential for restricted NIROCs and question marks around grid connection confirmation — mean that this is not a consultation? The outcomes are extremely limited.”
“I thank Mr Allen for his question and the Commission for its answers, which rightly underscore the need for proper provision. Has consideration been given to those who may not be disabled but could have conditions that somehow restrict their movement or ability to access the Building, particularly given that they have to park long distances away from the Building when they come here?”
“Creating much better social cohesion and integration must be another Programme for Government requirement. <BR /> <BR />Health reform, job creation, better infrastructure, creating world-class education and tackling social deprivation are issues on which the SDLP is not prepared to compromise. Stagnation at Stormont is no longer an option. In the next mandate, we want to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland, make things work and drive the changes that our society cries out for. <BR /> <BR />Finally, I thank all those who serve the Assembly for their positive contributions and all those who, in any way, influence and shape it. In that context, I thank you too, Mr Speaker, and I wish you well, along with all your colleagues who are retiring.”
“We need to do everything we can to bring investment and job opportunities. A prosperity strategy should also include a massive programme of workforce training and skills enhancement. We need to meaningfully address the levels of social deprivation that prevent far too many people here reaching their potential and cause such strain, for example, on our health service. The legacy of the Troubles has meant that some areas have fallen behind and are now dominated by long-term mental health issues and other long-term conditions brought about by long-term deprivation and unemployment. What sort of society are we if we continue to allow the most marginalised to be further marginalised? What sort of Government have we become that we have not altered our deprivation statistics in any meaningful way in the past nine years?”
“In particular, we want the Programme for Government to adopt a much more joined-up style of government that delivers much greater accountability and transparency and will itself say that it wants Northern Ireland to work. <BR /> <BR />Nine years after the resurrection of devolution, can we say that the Assembly has worked for our population of 1·8 million, when less than half are economically active and when we generate revenues of £14 billion a year and consume close to £24 billion a year in public services? With the Conservatives committed to their stringent austerity programme, there will be no special dispensation for here. Our situation is fundamentally and economically unsustainable, and that is why we will not accept anything less than a detailed prosperity strategy come May.”
“There are many big challenges facing Northern Ireland, perhaps the biggest of which is to get people into work. It is our job to create the infrastructural and educational opportunities and to maximise those opportunities. The SDLP can sum it up simply in saying that we need to make Northern Ireland work and that the Assembly needs to make Northern Ireland work. <BR /> <BR />The public know, instinctively, that we have not delivered all that we could, which is why the public are looking to the next mandate and the next Programme for Government. Following the Assembly election, this party will heavily scrutinise the Programme for Government. If it does not come up to the mark, we will not be afraid to say so.”
“<BR /> <BR />We can point to collective achievements — local government reform among them — but just months ago the echoes of our past threatened our political future, reinforcing the challenges to our delicate political system that the Good Friday Agreement could never have foreseen. We cannot look back on a mandate and claim that it succeeded when we ended with a process we called 'A Fresh Start': a fresh start that failed to properly address the needs of victims and survivors; a fresh start that had Sinn Féin and the DUP handing welfare-cutting powers back to Westminster and not resolving it in the interests of the most vulnerable; and a fresh start that failed to reference job creation, economic development or a prosperity process as a top priority.”
“It is our job to ensure that our people can and should dare to dream that life can be better; that our children will not be forced to leave these shores for the promise of work in Australia or America because of a failing economy — I referenced the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's latest research; that our health service provides a service that is fit for the 21st century and is not dominated by waiting-list headlines, among others; that we can provide world-class education and training for our young people; and that we become a much more cohesive society that is at peace, finally, with its troubled past. Can we say that in this mandate we have achieved that ambition on behalf of all our people?”
“Mr Speaker, I think we all enter politics to make a difference. Individually, we help in the daily life of many of our constituents, but it is the Assembly's job and ours as politicians collectively to really make a difference for society as a whole.”
“The Minister is right: the lists are too long. In fact, they are longest they have been in 15 years. While I welcome funding, individuals have been on waiting lists because the Minister cut the elective care fund to prevent an A&E crisis. Rather than cutting and then throwing money at the crisis that that provokes, will the Minister outline his long-term plan to deal with demand?”
“In two reasonably recent presentations to separate Committees, the Enterprise Committee was told that there is reasonable expertise within Invest NI on accessing FTC, while the Health Committee was told that it is notoriously difficult, despite the fact that it has set aside £10 million to spend. How can we achieve best practice among civil servants in accessing such funding?”
“The five-year review is particularly important as the Welsh Act progresses and is important in informing the Assembly on the potential need for further legislation in the next mandate. I hope that this issue is revisited then.”
“Amendment No 9 is a technical amendment to clause 15, in relation to the scope of the annual campaign. Amendment Nos 10 to 14 are technical in relation to the operation of the annual reporting obligation and the obligation to consider necessary reform within five years. Those amendments narrow the scope of the provision so as to focus solely on transplantation. The SDLP has no issue with those amendments. <BR /> <BR />The SDLP believes that the Bill does not resolve the outstanding issues surrounding organ donation. The issues relating to increasing donor rates need much wider consideration and are not covered adequately through this mechanism. However, we are coming to the end of the mandate, and the SDLP is content to support clauses 15 and 16, as amended, which call for greater awareness raising and an annual review of organ donation.”
“I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the group 3 amendments. I, too, will be brief. The amendments in this group are technical in nature and uncontroversial. Amendment No 8 extends clause 15 to include the promotion of the:”
“One year would provide the Chamber with more information to gauge the need for intervention, and I think it is important that, if you are serious about these things, you need to send out a signal that you are serious. Pushing it back two years could be seen as kicking the issue down the road. However, as I said at the start, it is important to remember that we need a joined-up government approach to tackling obesity, and, while piecemeal legislation may provide some valuable information, we really need a cross-departmental, targeted approach that focuses on education, prevention and early intervention.”
“Would this simply be an academic piece of literature or would it be something similar to RaISe research? In his remarks, he referred to the fact that it will be a robust study, but when does a robust study not become a consultation? Surely a consultation should form a key part of a robust study. Through amendment No 7, the Minister intends to rule out public engagement, and the question remains as to what extent the Department will engage with stakeholders or the public to assess the appetite for change. For example, will there be a call for evidence? <BR /> <BR />On amendment No 5, the Minister has described how he intends to increase the time limit to carry out such a study from one year to two years. We do not agree that it would take any more than a year to complete such a body of work.”
“Obesity is the epidemic of the 21st century, and the SDLP believes that this Chamber should do all in its powers to prevent it from occurring in the first place. In that regard, the party believes that a more holistic approach is required, and I will deal with that at the end. <BR /> <BR />During Consideration Stage, the SDLP was broadly supportive of clause 8, in that it would give the Chamber more information to gauge the necessity for intervention in introducing a levy on sugary drinks. However, there are a number of issues with today's amendments. First, amendment Nos 4 and 6 appear to reduce the ambition by prescribing the carrying out of a study rather than a formal consultation, as was originally proposed. There are perhaps a number of questions for the Minister.”
“The Minister's amendment Nos 2 and 3 are technical and do not remove any of the intent behind the original amendment. Therefore, I am happy to support them. Amendment No 15 is, again, a technical amendment, as has been reflected, and I have no issues with it. <BR /> <BR />To conclude, we have a proud history in this Chamber of bringing forward instrumental pieces of legislation in relation to smoking, all of which have proved hugely successful in changing societal behaviours and culture. The SDLP believes that today's amendments do not take anything away from what we originally proposed, and we are happy to support the group 1 amendments.”
“The Minister's sole focus on the provision being enforced by local authorities was hampered by the fact that local authorities do not have stop-and-search powers, meaning that they are unable to issue a fine. Only the PSNI has those explicit powers. The SDLP raised that at Consideration Stage, and I am glad that the Minister has listened and has rectified the oversight. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 2 deals with clause 6, which was proposed by the SDLP. Clause 6 provides in law for the Department to review the legislation three years after it comes into force. I am glad that the Minister has recognised the need to review the legislation by supporting clause 6.”
“Every time that someone smokes a cigarette, they breathe in a lethal concoction of toxins, but they breathe out even more, as the smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, many of which are highly toxic. That is why the SDLP tabled amendments at Consideration Stage. I am glad that the Health Minister has now recognised that by providing for further amendment through amendment No 1. It provides for a general ban on smoking in cars with children. It provides powers to amend or modify the schedule if, for example, electronic cigarettes are deemed to be harmful. Importantly, amendment No 1 deals with the issue of enforcement where the Minister and Department had some difficulties with the original amendment.”
“As the SDLP health spokesperson and a member of the Health Committee, I will address the amendments in group 1. <BR /> <BR />At this stage, the negative health implications that flow from passive smoking in cars have been well rehearsed in the Chamber, but I will again quote some statistics from the Health Department. Around 15% of adults smoke with their children present in the car. Given that there are around 360,000 smokers in Northern Ireland, it is easy to do the maths: over 50,000 people regularly smoke with one, two or three children in the car. You can begin to see the impact that that can have. For us, as a party, that is unacceptable. <BR /> <BR />Passive smoking proves to be a serious health hazard.”
“In those circumstances we believe this to be the right course of action, and we look forward to the outcome of the review during the next mandate. I hope for a positive resolution that could provide a welcome boost in the opening of finance for businesses across Northern Ireland through the credit union movement. <BR /> <BR />To conclude, I reiterate that the SDLP supports the Bill. It is a step in the right direction and will go a considerable way towards bolstering credit unions and IPS regulations to ensure that they are best able and best placed to serve our community.”
“Due to that, with the pressing need for the legislation to proceed, the Committee was content to explore the possibility of a review clause in the Bill that would prescribe in law the actions to be taken by the Department to review how exactly an amendment to the legislation could allow for unincorporated members to be included.”
“The Bill has been argely uncontroversial, and its clauses have the broad support of the sector, as was reflected in the Committee investigation. <BR /> <BR />I want to touch on one element that relates to further review. Both the Irish League of Credit Unions and the Ulster Federation of Credit Unions raised concerns about unincorporated bodies, in conjunction with their membership, being in the name of an individual rather than the organisation. They stated that that created something of an unequal playing field and some difficulties. Through further scrutiny by the Committee, in liaison with the Department, it became clear that there were complicated legal considerations.”
“I am glad that the Bill further protects the role that credit unions and other providers play in society, and I hope that it goes some way to alleviate the financial pressures that are put on people who are victims of extortionate payday loans. <BR /> <BR />It is important to take the opportunity to commend all those involved in bringing forward the Bill. I echo the comments of my colleague Mr Patsy McGlone. It has been an arduous task. I thank the Minister and his departmental officials for their continuous engagement with the Committee during its scrutiny of the legislation. I also thank the Irish League of Credit Unions and the Ulster Federation of Credit Unions, which attended numerous oral evidence sessions with the Committee to tease out the issues as they progressed.”
“As has been stated, it is the outworking of a Committee inquiry in the previous mandate that made a number of recommendations to broaden the range of credit services that credit unions can offer. <BR /> <BR />It is important to remind the House, as I did at the previous stage of the Bill, of something that the SDLP holds dear: credit unions were established, with Ireland's greatest — John Hume — playing a pivotal role, to address the massive inequality in our society, when many vulnerable people were being exploited for profit, as mentioned by Mr Dunne. Some of that is still seen today in the payday loans and other short-term financial deals that exploit many people.”
“I support the Credit Unions and Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Bill. As a member of the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee, I welcome its Final Stage. The wide scope of the Bill is to be welcomed. By way of background, as has already been highlighted, the Bill is an attempt to update and modernise the law relating to credit unions and industrial provident societies. As has been stated, both are an integral part of our economy and make a massive contribution by offering financial services and credit to many individuals, including local businesses owners and those in the agriculture sector, who are the backbone of our economy. <BR /> <BR />The Bill has been long in gestation, but it is important legislation for the Committee.”
“The SDLP believes that today's Bill does not resolve the outstanding issues surrounding organ donation; it also believes that the issues surrounding increasing donor rates need much wider consideration. I cannot emphasise that enough. However, due to the fact that we are coming to the end of a mandate, the SDLP will not object to the proposals made in group 3, which call for greater awareness raising and an annual review of organ donation.”
“It is important, and the Chamber should acknowledge the amount of work that Jo-Anne Dobson has done in bringing forward her Human Transplantation Bill. It is with regret that she will not be moving forward with her Bill, due to a lack of consensus, but, as I said, I hope there will be a return to the issue in the new mandate. <BR /> <BR />The SDLP has always called for more debate on organ donation and has lobbied for an increase in the number of organ donors to improve the networks for sourcing and sharing donor organs and transplant services throughout these islands for those seriously ill people who are on long waiting lists and whose lives are dependent on the gift of organ donation.”
“I would like the Minister to reflect on that and to detail what work his Department is engaged in to make cross-border donation a reality. I think that that request for information speaks to the broader context of where the debate should be. There is a great potential to share resources, to collaborate on increasing donation rates on an all-island basis, and, ultimately, to save more lives, because it is my understanding that there are even more people in the Republic willing to donate anonymously. That is nothing short of marvellous, and it is preparation for even more miracles. <BR /> <BR />So, it is against that wider backdrop that it is important that the Chamber does everything that it can to promote organ donation to ensure that people on waiting lists have the best chance of receiving a life-changing organ.”
“A few weeks ago, I visited the renal unit at Belfast City Hospital and met clinicians who, frankly, are performing nothing short of miracles. They explained the detrimental impact that long-term dialysis has on patients and the importance of receiving a kidney as soon as possible. This is a startling thing, but, last year, seven people came to the centre and donated a kidney, not, as many might expect, for a spouse or other family member, but for a stranger. I think that all of us here tonight should applaud those people for that generosity. <BR /> <BR />One issue raised during the visit surrounded the potential to increase cross-border living donations. Clinicians stated that progress has stalled on a service agreement between both jurisdictions.”
“Given the effort that was put into this, and in recognition of what Mr Ross says about how people have travelled in the debate, I think that she deserved that courtesy. I understand where you are coming from, Mr Easton, but I think that "cheeky" is an understatement. Earlier, somebody mentioned a journey. I think that Mrs Dobson has had her luggage taken by those who have jumped on the other carriage. I say that in the context of what has happened here. A lot of effort was put into this, and we still need to consider the issue much more fully than in the process that is being proposed tonight, but I will get to that later. <BR /> <BR />It is important to remind the Chamber that around 200 people here are waiting for an organ transplant and that, sadly, 17 died last year, long before being offered the opportunity for a transplant.”
“I welcome the opportunity to contribute to tonight's debate on the group 3 amendments. We should remember that what we have here was never intended to be part of the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. What we have is the skeleton of a Bill that was proposed by Jo-Anne Dobson and largely rejected by the two larger parties. The SDLP attempted to amend it, and that was largely rejected by the two larger parties. What we now have are measures that appear to be tagged on to the end of the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. That was done without even giving Mrs Dobson the courtesy of telling her what was coming down the track.”
“If we take the same approach as the countries that I mentioned, it would require a change in VAT. Of course, that is outwith our control; it is a reserved matter. There are other issues that need to be considered, such as the impact that such a tax could have on the local economy and on local businesses, and they must be given thorough consideration. <BR /> <BR />The SDLP is open to the concept of having a consultation and is content enough with amendment No 4, but we believe that a more holistic approach is required to tackle all the issues around childhood and other obesity.”
“The Finnish model shows that, despite a high level of taxation on sugary drinks since the 1940s, obesity amongst children is actually increasing, albeit at marginally lower levels than in the UK. There is a lot to be considered in this. We need a concerted approach to tackling obesity, and a sugar tax may be one of the elements that would provide an overall solution. <BR /> <BR />There has been some movement in the UK on the introduction of sugar taxes. The Health Committee considered the issue and recommended the introduction of a tax of between 10% and 20%, along with a crackdown on the advertising of sugary products aimed at children, but that did not find overall favour. As we consider today's amendment in relation to here, there is an issue concerning taxation and who would enforce it.”
“A consultation as proposed in the amendment is perhaps a logical step to ask the Minister to take, as we need to make informed decisions on this important issue. I say this sort of humorously, but here we are legislating for consultation when we do not have sufficient consultation for legislation. With regard to the implementation of a tax on sugary drinks, the paper stated that there have been mixed levels of success within other jurisdictions in providing better health outcomes. In Mexico, where there is a 10% levy on sugary drinks, that resulted in a 6% decrease in consumption, but similar strategies elsewhere have had different results. For example, the Danish model saw people buying cheaper brands and travelling across borders to buy products, and, of course, there would be an implication for that here too.”
“Serious health conditions often emerge, and the SDLP believes that the Assembly should do all within its power to prevent them from occurring in the first place. That will in turn, as I say, provide savings for the Department of Health. <BR /> <BR />Part of the global effort to tackle childhood obesity and to raise health revenues surrounds the introduction of a levy on sugary drinks, which is colloquially known as the sugar tax. Here, it is fair to say that we are at a very early stage in the debate. The Health Minister has indicated, and we heard further reflection tonight, that he has no plans to consult on the issue. <BR /> <BR />A recent RaISe paper that was tabled to the Health Committee stated that there are no recent figures on consumption, so there is a lack of clear data available.”
“I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the group 2 amendments and the amendment that asks for the Department of Health to consult on the possible benefits of introducing a levy on sugar-sweetened drinks. <BR /> <BR />Obesity is a 21st-century epidemic. A recent study by the Institute of Education in London found that a staggering one in four children born here at the start of the century were obese by the time they reached 11 years of age. It also showed that levels of childhood obesity here are the highest in the UK at 24%, while in Wales they are 23%, in England they are 20% and in Scotland they are 19%. Such levels are not acceptable when we consider the extent to which obesity presents health problems for our children and others and all the problems that those then present to the health service.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He has touched on an issue that the Minister might reflect on later. If he is saying that there is the potential that the Executive might not let some of this go ahead, is it not easier to back an amendment now, because there might not be a guarantee that it will happen? For whatever reason, something might happen in the Executive that would not allow this to proceed.”
“I referred to the Department of Health's statistics. Does the Member accept that, if the Department has found that 15% of smokers smoke in their cars with children present, which represents 15% of 360,000 people, there is a problem that needs to be solved with, as I say, a ban, promotion and penalty?”
“If so, children here would suffer as a result. I urge support for the amendments.”
“The issue is the size of the car and the space within which you are using the device. So, it is a precautionary principle. Principle attached to precaution is acceptable, and it is understood in our society that we can be precautionary and can say that we are banning something. This is something that comes under the umbrella of nicotine products or tobacco. <BR /> <BR />We understand the negative effects of nicotine and tobacco products on people's health. That is why we are proposing the measure. It does not shut the door; it is saying, "Let's review this in three years' time". That is a reasonable and sensible approach. <BR /> <BR />So, I think that the House would agree that a change in the law is necessary. Northern Ireland may remain the only jurisdiction in these islands that does not have a ban on smoking in cars with children.”
“On the face of it, perhaps, but, at the same time, it is an inhalable tobacco product, and, by extension, you exhale.”
“However, we cannot afford to give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to children's health. We are proposing that further amendment so that we can —”
“Amendment No 5 would place an obligation on the Department of Health to review our amendments to ensure that they are operating as they were intended and to give an opportunity for any further amendment that may be necessary to ensure that the legislation is as robust and coherent as possible. Earlier, Mr Ross intervened on the matter, and I wish to reflect on that. There has not been any conclusive study compiled on the impact of e-cigarettes. We accept that, but, at the same time, and as a precaution — you could always step outside the car for five minutes and have your e-cigarette — the SDLP believes that they should be included in the Bill. E-cigarettes have proven to be a great success for many adults quitting smoking, and I support that.”
“He clearly recognised a lot of what I am talking about by way of penalties. However, there appear to have been some drafting difficulties or other issues. The Minister's focus was then on how local authorities are hampered by not having stop-and-search powers, meaning that they are unable to issue a fine when they see a breach of the provision taking place. Only the PSNI here has those explicit powers and can issue on-the-spot fines. That is why we believe that it is vital to include amendment No 3 in the Bill. As I said, taking another approach might lead to another conversation, but we will have rejected one of the vital ingredients and easy options that could make a difference in the debate. <BR /> <BR />It is paramount to review any piece of legislation that changes the law.”
“If there is a bit of a tweak needed, let us talk about that, but let us not send out a signal from the Chamber tonight that we have rejected two of the most crucial elements of what will work to limit aspects of smoking that will affect our children. <BR /> <BR />We have had a whole range of anti-smoking campaigns here. I referred earlier to the Public Health Agency's one-in-two campaign. The SDLP believes that aspects of that campaign can easily be extended to ensure that members of the public are aware of the changes. As I said, I believe that the Sinn Féin amendment is flawed. I hope that the House has understood the nature of the flaw. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 3 prescribes powers for the police for administering fixed penalty notices. The Minister had signalled an intent to amend in that regard.”
“At this late stage, I still appeal to parties to think again. If there is a bit of nuance required at the next stage, let us look at that, but let us not cast our amendments aside now for a one-sentence amendment that bans smoking in cars without those important proven-track-record ingredients that would make such a difference attached. We are talking about our children — your children, my children and others' children. We are all talking about parents, but what happens if somebody who smokes in a car is taking your child to another destination? You are not going to be too happy about that. We need to send out a very strong signal tonight that we recognise and endorse those essential ingredients.”
“We know that that is stacking up huge health service bills for us in years to come. We know what we have to do, and we cannot ignore that. To choose an amendment that ignores those crucial elements and ingredients of success would be to miss an important opportunity.”