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 2 of 15.
“To borrow a court phrase, there rests the case for the defence. You either want promotion or you do not want promotion. In the transplantation issue that is coming up, Sinn Féin will be looking for evidence promotion. That is exactly what we are looking for in this group of amendments. <BR /> <BR />The same principles apply in amendment No 2. There is a need to have a substantive element of public awareness, but it is not just about that. This is the importance of the promotion aspect of it. I am talking about the balance of those two things: penalty and promotion. It is about creating a societal shift. It is about celebrating what we did all those years ago to ban smoking in bars and applying it to something that we categorically know is causing all these problems. We know that children are inhaling these dangerous and noxious toxins.”
“<BR /> <BR />Turning to the specific amendments in this group, I commend Sinn Féin for tabling amendment No 1. However, as I have outlined, it is limited. The SDLP believes that accompanying such a change in the law must be an effort to raise public awareness of the issue. You may simply say, "It will come in regulations", but there is no guarantee. We need to say what we mean and mean what we say. We should introduce a ban, promote it and introduce the penalty. We have already recognised the importance of raising public awareness during recent debates on organ donation. In fact, later in this debate, Sinn Féin will ask for a promotion campaign on a different issue. On one hand, they ask for it on that but, on the other, they say, "Just support our amendment and reject the SDLP's amendment, which includes promotion".”
“There has been overwhelming support from the royal colleges, health experts and leading authorities in public health across the UK. During Committee Stage, the British Medical Association and Cancer Focus wrote to the Committee stressing the need to include a ban in the Bill, while Chest, Heart and Stroke has campaigned for its introduction for a number of years. We all celebrate the expertise and commitment of those organisations; indeed, they have presented to the Committee many times in the past. We take the bona fides of that evidence. In fact, they have conducted a public opinion poll in Northern Ireland that reveals that a staggering 92% of people agree with the ban. I am sure that the House would agree that such public support reinforces the need to support the SDLP amendments in the first group.”
“The headlines around the implications of that were perhaps much more negative, but, in fact, they were saying that they would implement it but were giving it a three-month grace period. My amendments are not solely about fining people; they are about creating a behavioural and cultural shift for people to realise that their actions are impacting on their child's health and that such actions will not be tolerated. In marrying those two things together, the police are perhaps sensibly looking at it and saying, "Promotion and penalty; let's go for the societal shift here. People are aware now". It is about that awareness programme as well. <BR /> <BR />I would like to put on record my appreciation of the many organisations that have called for the introduction of the ban.”
“The only way to provide children with effective protection from passive smoke in cars is to prevent them breathing it in in the first place. It is simple, and it is exactly what has happened in other jurisdictions: Scotland, Wales and the Republic are all legislating on the issue, and England introduced a ban that came into force in October last year. I refer to Mr Ross's earlier intervention from across the Chamber and would like to clear up what the police said. The police simply said that they would give a three-month grace period after the implementation of the English Act; they did not say that they would not act on the Act. They said that they would give it a three-month grace period, which is a different thing.”
“The Minister will be conscious of the earlier debate on the need for early interventions in all of these issues, and one of the earliest interventions would be to stop people smoking, which would have a tremendous effect on limiting child ill health. We know that children are more vulnerable to passive smoke exposure in vehicle because their immune systems are not yet fully developed, they breathe more rapidly and they inhale more pollutants than adults. Scientific evidence shows that ventilation does not eliminate the risk to health of passive smoking in enclosed spaces. <BR /> <BR />It is against that backdrop that early intervention and prevention are key. That is why the anti-smoking narrative from 2007 to today has been so valuable. We must continue that narrative.”
“Passive smoke poses a serious health hazard. Studies have shown that there is no safe level of exposure, not least in an enclosed vehicle. Every time someone smokes a cigarette, they breathe in a lethal concoction of toxins and other harmful chemicals, and every time a person breathes in passive smoke, the danger increases, as the smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, many highly toxic and more than 50 known to be carcinogenic. The evidence is stark. <BR /> <BR />Passive smoke also affects children more than others, causing a variety of adverse health effects, including an increased susceptibility to respiratory tract infections, such as pneumonia and bronchitis, the worsening of asthma, middle ear disease, decreased lung function and sudden infant death syndrome.”
“I urge those who have declared that they want to back a certain amendment to think about the SDLP amendment, which includes the successful ingredients for limiting the harmful effects of smoking. These are all evidence of a progression that must be welcomed and is all the more important given the detrimental impact of smoking. <BR /> <BR />What we have not done so far is legislate on smoking in cars with children, which is an important piece of the anti-smoking jigsaw. I will quote some statistics from the Department of Health: 15% of adults smoke with their children present in the car, which, given the headline figure that I outlined earlier, means that roughly 50,000 to 55,000 people regularly smoke with one, two or more children in the car. You begin to see the impact that it can have. That is unacceptable.”
“We continued on that journey when we raised the age for purchasing tobacco to 18 in 2008. Once again, we had the promotion and the penalty — the carrot and stick. We passed the Tobacco Retailers Act last year. It aims to restrict the availability of cigarettes to children and targets adults buying for children. We supported Westminster regulations on plain cigarette packaging, which I hope will act as a further disincentive to young people taking up smoking. Once again, there was promotion and penalty. The ingredients for success on the journey to protect people from the dangers of smoking are there, and we should embrace them. <BR /> <BR />Those who oppose what we propose today have not included promotion and penalty in their amendment.”
“The child is travelling in that car, whereas he or she could be outside the house when the parents are smoking inside, or the parents could be smoking outside when the child is inside. There are arguments there, and I urge Members to support the exact direction of travel.”
“I think that, for several reasons, we should go some distance towards exactly what you outlined. First, the confined space — the car — means that fumes are more noxious; secondly, a child does not have a choice; and, thirdly, I make a distinction between a car and a domestic house. I appreciate your point about a small flat, but, for me, that is probably going too far. If you are saying that there could be a difficulty with the size of a flat, I guess that you could point out that, if a car is small, the toxicity of the fumes could be more potent.”
“Those are startling statistics. <BR /> <BR />I commend the Assembly, which has taken great strides in changing societal attitudes and culture on smoking. A hugely successful ban on smoking in public places and public vehicles, for example, was introduced in 2007. As well as the ban, there were two important ingredients: promotion and penalty. It was a carrot-and-stick approach, but it was effective. You will probably remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, the controversy that surrounded the issue, but, in the end, it produced a good result. Nobody is now fined because we achieved a societal change, and people respect the change that we were trying to achieve, despite its having been controversial. Some of the questions raised now on this Bill are similar to those raised on that smoking ban, but we should try to achieve the ambition.”
“I speak as the SDLP health spokesperson and as a member of the Health Committee. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Consideration Stage of the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I will address the group 1 amendments. <BR /> <BR />The rationale that underpins the SDLP amendments is about protecting people's lives and health, especially the health and well-being of children, from the dangers of nicotine and tobacco products. In that context, it is important to remind ourselves that smoking remains the single greatest cause of preventable illness and premature death here. The Public Health Agency estimates that in Northern Ireland around 360,000 people aged 16 and over smoke. Sadly, one in two smokers die early because of their habit. Each year, approximately 2,300 people die from smoking-related illnesses.”
“The Minister will be aware of the increase in burglaries in South Belfast in the recent past. Is any consideration being given to directing moneys at deterrence or awareness or to protecting the victims of such burglaries?”
“I am coming to it now, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker — has been rebuked, I believe wrongly, in the past, but is the Minister's announcement today of a new manufacturing strategy in the dying days of the mandate not simply an acknowledgement of failure to date?”
“I think, given the scale of the job losses, that it is incumbent on all of us to reflect on the individual and collective impact on the workers, and I do that today. It is our job as Assembly Members to critique the Minister and his Department. Anyone who has criticised the Executive's economic policy in the past has been rebuked —”
“Of course, there were two cases in the Republic. What conversations is his Department having with colleagues in the Department of Health in the South to ensure full protection on the island?”
“I was about to conclude my remarks on the general issue of budget. Departments have estimated that between £75 million and £129 million is required —”
“Yes, though I have to say that that inclusion may have drifted beyond the —”
“There are significant amendments to the tribunal section in Part 6 of the Bill, but, first, I would like to note some of the points made to the Committee on the tribunal. <BR /> <BR />The Law Society noted the expanding remit of the tribunal but sought confirmation that there would be a corresponding increase in resources.”
“They stated that their voice must be clearly audible in decisions being made close to the end of their life when they cannot make those decisions. Amendment No 331 is the new clause on advance decisions. It provides for a review, after three years, of the law relating to advance decisions to refuse treatment. We welcome that and will support it. <BR /> <BR />Clauses 35 and 36 provide for the inclusion of the independent advocate as an additional safeguard in all cases where the individual lacks capacity. We support the technical amendments in that regard. <BR /> <BR />Clauses 45 to 51 provide for rights of review of authorisation, that is to say a right to apply to a tribunal to review decisions relating to capacity.”
“That remains the case in England, Wales and Scotland, which have proceeded with developing legislation that has been enacted for a number of years. We have been lagging behind due to the absence of an exhaustive framework. <BR /> <BR />The SDLP recognises that advance decisions can be a useful tool with which patients and professionals can work together to draw up a plan of what to do when a patient is unwell. That means that their wishes can be respected. The Alzheimer's Society related to the Committee that the Bill must operate as a stimulus to encourage the practice of making advance decisions, but it had significant concerns about who triggers the practice and how that happens so as to maximise the capacity of people with dementia at an early stage.”
“The Committee received a large amount of correspondence and briefings and undertook significant discussion of safeguards and protections from the liability section of the Bill. The SDLP made clear at Second Stage that, while we support the principles of the Bill, as I have underscored, we have lagged behind in the UK for decades in not having that fully tailored legislative framework for mental capacity, and we have relied on the antiquated Mental Health Order, which wraps mental capacity around mental health disorder in the common law, relying on the outdated principle of necessity. The concerns of those with mental illness have historically been separated from the treatment of capacity in general.”
“It is important to mention that the SDLP previously noted its concerns over the Bamford action plans and asked that the appropriate funding be made available to implement them. I will touch on that later. <BR /> <BR />There is a broad spectrum of individuals who do not receive the care or support that they need, and it is important that the Assembly reflects on that. However, it is positive, in the context of today's debate, to see some outcome from the Bamford action plans. <BR /> <BR />At Second Stage, the Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee referred to finance and the extra cost. I am sure that it would be beneficial to have some sort of economic audit carried out of that. While some people see everything as cost, there could be savings as well. <BR /> <BR />I turn to the group of amendments.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Bill calls for suitable and adequate support to be given to individuals when all decisions relating to capacity are taken. I welcome the approach taken by the Minister in tabling amendments in that regard to ensure that there is a clear measure of support available, whether that be through minimum standards or otherwise. We also need to ensure that, when older people make important decisions about their future, which often happens in urgent or time-critical situations, they are given the best opportunity to make their own choices. <BR /> <BR />I will touch on the practicalities of the Bill. There is an obvious need to ensure at the outset that the bodies and individuals operating under the Bill are adequately funded and resourced.”
“I welcome the fact that adequate legislative measures and safeguards are tightened through the amendments to ensure that individuals are protected when decisions have to be made on their behalf. It is worth underscoring the point that we really have an opportunity with the Bill to be world leaders in setting the best standards achievable for vulnerable adults who may lack, even intermittently, the capacity to make important decisions for themselves. <BR /> <BR />The Bill has been described as representing a paradigm shift in the approach to the care and treatment of individuals with mental disorders. No longer will they be treated or seen as a separate class of individual. Capacity will no longer be defined differently among people, and that has to be recognised as a positive move.”
“It is in that context that we see how important the Bill will be for those with mental illness, their families and extended families. <BR /> <BR />The development of the Bill, as we all know, has been a long process, starting back in 2002 with the Bamford review, which was commissioned to examine the best possible way to provide services to people with mental health issues or a learning disability. Finalised in 2007, it recommended having a single piece of legislation that would provide a framework for the reform of mental health legislation. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the group 1 amendments, which, as I said, have the aim of empowering vulnerable adults with impaired mental capacity to make as many of their own decisions as possible.”
“I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Consideration Stage of the Mental Capacity Bill. Before getting on to the group 1 amendments, it is worthwhile sketching out some of the broader issues underpinning the need for change. It is worthwhile reiterating some stark statistics on the number of people whom today's Bill will impact on. We have almost 20,000 people living with dementia in Northern Ireland, and that number is likely to rise. We have 1% of the population suffering from schizophrenia, 13% suffering from depression and almost 214,000 carers for people who may lack capacity. All those people and many others may need important decisions to be made on their behalf, or they may need to make decisions for other people.”
“The Department, the Minister and others should have known so much more about it and alerted us at a much earlier stage.”
“If he is going to bring people to the Chamber and ask us to endorse an allegation about abuse when he does not have any evidence of that nature at all, and in fact admits that he does not have any evidence and may now start searching for that evidence, I think that he will get a different response from us than the one that he would like. <BR /> <BR />We are not going to accept a gun-to-our-head proposition from the Minister on this issue. Work was not done. More explanations are needed. More mitigation should be forthcoming. The SDLP will not respond to dire warnings. We want to see further mitigation action taken, potentially sliding-scale propositions, but certainly not a gun to our head on a Monday afternoon in the Chamber. This was brought late.”
“There was reflection earlier of the contradictory implications of other companies that we were encouraging to do this work and sell, both internally here and for export, being in receipt of Invest NI grants. It is important that we ask some of those questions as well. <BR /> <BR />The Chair reflected very well the concerns that we should all have about how this scheme increased but nothing was done. In England, when they experienced an increase, they took action to try to mitigate those increases. However, nothing was done here. I do not know whether that was during the time that the Minister was in and out of his seat, but certainly that was not helpful. <BR /> <BR />I have to say that I take issue with the Minister talking about abuse of this scheme and then saying, in the same sentence, that he does not have any evidence.”
“To break that down for three of the headline constituencies: that is over £5 million in Upper Bann, £6 million in South Down and maybe £16 million in Mid Ulster. As I said, 14 companies were surveyed, but the organisation underscored that there was a potential impact of 140 lost jobs. That could rise to 2,000 overall, or so it claims. It also talked about working capital, and the stock that is either held or in transit here is around £3·6 million. <BR /> <BR />It is also important to consider the implications for renewable energy policy here. In particular, what drivers will there be to allow us to achieve the 2020 10% target if the ROCs are gone and this renewable heat incentive scheme is gone as well?”
“I endorse the account of the Committee's lack of awareness of this situation as reflected by my colleague Mr Patsy McGlone. I also welcome the outlining of some of the issues as they reflect on individuals. <BR /> <BR />Mr Lunn referred to what Action Renewables has done to inform Members, and it is important to remember that Action Renewables is a respected institution, which gave evidence to the Committee when that was sought. Indeed, it is worthwhile putting on record in the House just what it said. It sampled 14 different companies — Members will have this, but I think that it is important to read it into the record — and, basically, it says that, next year, £22 million of pipeline work may not now go ahead.”
“Of course, this is not the first time that we have had implications around those targets affected by action by the Department of Enterprise. Combined with the earlier ending of the ROC support scheme, there will be a further impact, so what conversations can the Minister now have to ensure that we make a meaningful contribution to mitigating climate change against this backdrop?”
“The Minister will be aware of the extent of suicide in Northern Ireland. In fact, since 1998, almost as many people have died from suicide as died in the Troubles. The Minister may also be aware that Jeremy Hunt has now announced further funding for mental health throughout the UK. Will the Minister give some assurances that he will write to Minister Hunt about any Barnett consequentials that flow from that and that that money will be ring-fenced and used for mental health in Northern Ireland?”
“I have been sitting for a moment thinking about your words, and I feel that the two people that you refer to probably feel unable to speak on their own behalf in that regard because it is difficult to talk about and defend your compassion. I have to say that, when people come to this Chamber and they reflect their opinions, they come with their bona fides intact. We can take political views from that, but, in this context and given the nature of the remarks that Mrs Kelly and Mrs Pengelly made, I think that the House should accept that they spoke with compassion.”
“We have not been given adequate time to consider them in detail. In fact, this debate and the number of interventions by those who have made the proposals suggest to me that we have not been given adequate time. I urge you to vote no.”
“I have heard the extent of the horror that is visited on people through domestic abuse, but is the only answer to that type of domestic abuse to seek an abortion? <BR /> <BR />We need — the Assembly and the health and justice authorities need — to start stitching together sufficient resources in finance and personnel to allow people to seek other answers and to get advice. My colleague Mr Frew talked eloquently about the scale of that type of abuse. One of the other ways is giving women access in a much more open-door way to facilities and advice rather than having to go to accident and emergency or for an abortion. The wider conversation that is being proposed by the DUP should include those discussions. <BR /> <BR />The SDLP cannot support this group of amendments. They have been hastily put forward by the Alliance Party and others.”
“Mr Agnew, Mr McCrea and Ms Lo, who tabled the amendments, should be aware of the challenges in convicting someone of rape and, indeed, incest crimes in our judicial system. Rape is historically under-reported in Northern Ireland, and conviction rates for these heinous crimes are not high, due to the burden of proof facing prosecutors. The time for such cases to progress through the criminal justice system would surely go beyond the 28-week limit for abortions. Have Members thought about those issues? Are we to permit abortions when the burden of proof has not been met and there is no conviction for rape? How does domestic violence impact on these issues? Like my colleagues, I have been lobbied on behalf of others who support the amendments.”
“That comes from the clinicians. <BR /> <BR />There are also issues around the upper gestational limit. The amendments do not prescribe a maximum time limit for when a foetus with a fatal abnormality can be legally aborted, and that is of further concern. Does it mean that a foetus can be aborted up until birth? There are other questions that, I think, my colleague Mr Maginness will touch on later, around disability discrimination. <BR /> <BR />I touch now on the further amendments on rape and incest. Let me say at the outset that these crimes are heinous and the perpetrators deserve the full punishment of the law. I cannot imagine the enormous distress and trauma that they cause to the women who are victims. However, rape and incest as grounds for abortion present their own conceptual challenges.”
“— he was talking about the royal college submission to you, Mr Ford —”
“I return to evidence from learned colleagues, particularly the obstetricians. Dr Jim Dornan, who has served this community well for many years, stated on a recent BBC programme, 'The View':”
“I do not think, Mr Speaker, you heard that from me. That was from Mr McCrea's lips, not mine. <BR /> <BR />I quote, this time, from the contribution to the consultation, section 16 of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists's response to Mr Ford's consultation.”
“I disagree. I merely ask the questions that others will ask about this very short process that has been foisted upon Members of the Assembly without proper consideration. These things should have been considered. I am making a process argument, as I have done from the start, that, as well as the fundamentals around the clauses, insufficient time has been given to this. They are reasonable questions that reasonable people are asking about what is being proposed.”
“Could it be used, for example, to abort foetuses with Down's syndrome or spina bifida?”
“It is important to remember that, under this amendment, fatal foetal abnormality is not limited to anencephaly; it is not limited to Trisomy 13 or any other conditions. So we have to ask, are there unintended consequences?”
“In my later remarks, I will reflect on the unintended consequences of what has been proposed, which will have the net effect of us extending the 1967 Act, which, in fact, could produce worse outcomes; if it could be worse. <BR /> <BR />Obviously, these amendments deal with that particular question in the debate about abortion: fatal foetal abnormality. I think I have dealt with that by virtue of the interventions, and I would like to make the point that, overall, this raises questions. The clinicians tell us that fatal foetal abnormality is not a medical term. It is an umbrella term, if you like, but it does not prescribe the exact conditions or illnesses that could meet the criteria for an abortion.”
“Clinicians tell us that, in almost all cases, they can actually extend life by a ventilator, for example. That is within their gift. So, in actual fact, this is contrary to the intent of Mr Dixon's overall clause, to begin with. <BR /> <BR />I would like to proceed. We must deal with any debate relating to such complex and sensitive issues in a measured, and considered manner. We must strive to have a framework that protects women, and the rights of unborn children, regardless of any complications. And in this context, and it has been outlined by Mrs Kelly, we are consistent, and have been consistent, that we oppose the extension — any extension — of the 1967 Act to Northern Ireland.”
“No, I think that I have been generous in allowing interventions and that I should be allowed to proceed. I will consider you coming in at a later point. <BR /> <BR />Subsequent to that, as a further definition:”
“Clinicians tell us that they cannot make that judgement. They do not know if it is going to be an hour, a day, a week, or a month. They simply do not know.”