Gerry Kelly
North Belfast · Sinn Féin · Northern Ireland
“I thank the Minister for his statement. Accountability and implementation have been mentioned a number of times. The test in all of this will be the speed of implementation. I declare an interest, in that my sister Peggy, who was next in the family to me, spent time in Muckamore many years ago.”
“I will finish in one second. When I asked her how she was doing, she said that she wanted me to go and help others. That is what she spent our time together talking about. <BR /> <BR />We are talking not just about closing Muckamore but about resettling people.”
“I understand that the amendment is not a panacea. Ultimately, however, it will improve the tools at the police's disposal. <BR /> <BR />There is a further issue regarding what happens to the vehicles once they are seized.”
“Sinn Féin supports all three of the amendments in group five. As we know, amendment Nos 74 and 75 will introduce new powers to allow the police do drug testing at checkpoints and road traffic collisions, which will bring drug testing in line with existing alcohol breath testing. It is a necessary step to ensure public safety.”
“We talked about regulations earlier, and a number of Members said that we may have to return to the issue. I understand that we are dealing with one particular issue in the Bill, but the Minister may agree that it is something that we should come back to as our experience of what is happening grows.”
“<BR /> <BR />In West Belfast just last week, at least two children were hospitalised as a result of collisions involving e-scooters and e-bikes, including one in which a young person's head went through the back window of a car. They are very lucky to be alive.”
The complete record
Every one of 547 lines we hold for Gerry Kelly, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 11.
“I am glad, Mr Speaker, that you accepted that, over the weekend, something quite significant happened that is worth a few moments of our time to contemplate. <BR /> <BR />After many years of disputes around the Crumlin/Ardoyne/Twaddell area, an agreement was signed that allowed the Twaddell camp to be dismantled and a moratorium to be put in, and for the Orange Order to complete its return parade from 2013. The agreement was long sought after. The issues surrounding the disputes affected not only everybody in the area but community relations. The big story is the fact that there was agreement, even though people had thought that this was an intractable problem, and there could be no agreement.”
“Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire go dtí seo. I thank the Minister for the answer up to now. If I may persist, if a number of those recommendations affect the Justice Department, will she come back to the Assembly and tell us about them? Has she spoken to the family? Have the authorities apologised to the young man for injuries that took place over a full hour in view of watching prison officers?”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. As he said, it is an urgent piece of business. However, on the social fund, the Peace fund and Erasmus, how will you deal with continuity? When will the funding stop? Despite what the Executive and your Department might do, how will all these groups survive and maintain continuity in going from where they are now into whatever the new situation is?”
“It will appear in Hansard; people and demonstrators can read it there. I am very confident that we will end up dealing with this matter under this Minister, even though, as he pointed out, there are other Departments and agencies involved in what must be dealt with. I commend the motion to the House.”
“He also said that this is much more widespread and we will see that as we go on. He very eloquently said that you cannot put a price on nature or natural beauty. He demanded change. <BR /> <BR />Minister Hazzard — which, if he does not mind me saying so, is either a very appropriate or inappropriate name for the debate that we are involved in — went through a whole litany. He went through the history of this and what the difficulties are. He agreed with many of the Members who spoke about that. <BR /> <BR />Let me get back to the remark about the "stroke of a pen", which was made earlier. While it cannot be done by the stroke of a pen, it can be done, and the Minister made the point that he intends to do that. I am not even going to try to go through all the issues that he raised, but he put forward a plan.”
“He mentioned the fact that thousands of homes, including some in West Belfast, are affected. As I remember, it is over 1,800 streets. It was unheard of to have a drill site as close to a reservoir as we have in these circumstances. He supports the motion. I notice that he referred a number of times to "politicians"; I remind him that he has now entered that field himself. He will soon be referred to as a politician also. He also said, as Eamonn McCann did, that we should put the environment before big business. In that, I absolutely agree with him. <BR /> <BR />Eamonn McCann, with his usual passion, said that this is not new. He named only a small number of other examples, but there are clearly many. He said that this is capitalism versus the ordinary people and capitalism versus the environment.”
“<BR /> <BR />Mark H Durkan — who, it is important to say, also supports the motion — explained that it was not a matter of "the stroke of a pen", in his case or anybody else's, and that there were other Ministers involved and indeed councils. Some of that was disputed by Stephen Agnew, who got up afterwards. He said that it was a huge decision and that it was made without public consultation or public agreement. I think that it is very important to try to rectify that. He also said not to play politics with it but then blamed all the other parties; but then, all is fair in debate. He is also supporting the motion. He argued, as others have done, for a change in permitted development rights and that there must be full planning permission and maximum scrutiny. <BR /> <BR />Gerry Carroll spoke very briefly.”
“When we get on to the Minister, we will find out that it is not simply a matter of a stroke of a pen, but it can be done, and the Minister has outlined how it can be done. <BR /> <BR />Caoimhe Archibald said that the law should be corrected because it is flawed and that the licensing should be by a mandatory and, I think, very importantly, independent environmental impact assessment, so that there can be no question about the impact assessment. She also said that we were going in the wrong strategic direction, and I agree with her. What we should be doing is reducing our dependency on the use of fossil fuels, so that it is not just — as Eamonn McCann later mentioned — to do with Woodburn forest, but to do with the whole of the North and, indeed, if you think about it widely enough, the whole of humanity.”
“Roy Beggs took up the challenge from Gordon Lyons and said that there are risks, and he went through a long litany of those risks which, you will be glad to hear, I am not going to repeat. He articulated the risks, and I think that most MLAs agree with him. <BR /> <BR />Claire Hanna said that the original decision did not have all the facts and that, now that there was further information, she defended her colleague Mark H Durkan valiantly — I am not too sure whether she did it well — by blaming everyone else. However, she supported the motion. <BR /> <BR />Stewart Dickson said that this was a vital matter, but then he tried to launch a very vicious attack on the proposer of the motion, and I think that was quite despicable. He said that it was a simple matter of a "stroke of a pen".”
“The question that I would put back to the Member is this: if there is no difficulty with that and you think that there are no risks, what is the problem with full planning permission being used in these terms? When you think about it, if you, as a single parent, are building an extension to your house — as a single person, I beg your pardon; maybe you are a single parent — as a single person, you will have to ask for full planning permission. A single person has to do that, yet it does not have to be done here despite the number of people who are personally affected, many of whom are above us here. It affects something like 1,800 streets, including over 500 in Belfast.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Comhghairdeas faoi do cheapachán, a Cheann Comhairle. I congratulate you on becoming the Speaker. <BR /> <BR />Oliver McMullan opened the debate and really summed up the difficulties right from the start. He asked why the previous Environment Minister had not insisted on a full environmental impact assessment and why there was a failure to respond within the 21-day deadline. He called for what, I think, most people agree to and what the Minister dealt with in the end: the repeal of section 16 of the permitted planning rights for mineral exploration and for all future applications to be put through a full planning application. <BR /> <BR />Gordon Lyons got up and said that he was happy with the assurances provided because they came from DETI and other agencies that he mentioned.”
“Does that stroke of a pen equally apply to the time of the previous Minister of the Environment, Mark Durkan? You seem to be attacking Sinn Féin now.”
“I will answer your question. That is not the intent. The Standing Order will come through in the new mandate. This is a mechanism to get this through on the basis of John McCallister's opposition Bill coming through. There is no intent in the way that the Member says.”
“I also thank the members of the Committee for their courtesy and cooperation throughout all of that. <BR /> <BR />In closing, I will simply say that the Committee has given a great deal of consideration to each of the amendments and is content that each amendment accurately reflects the provisions in the source documents that it seeks to interpret. Therefore, on behalf of the Committee on Procedures, I commend the motions to the House. <BR /> <BR />Bear with me a moment before I sit: speaking for myself and on behalf of Sinn Féin, we will support the changes to the Standing Orders that I have just outlined.”
“It also points to where definitions of the interests that Members must register can be found in the new code. The amendment proposed to Standing Order 81 simply clarifies the term "Guide to the Rules". <BR /> <BR />I will leave my remarks there, a LeasCheann Comhairle, but, before closing, I thank the Committee staff for all of the work that they have done to facilitate the Committee in bringing the amendments to the Assembly before the end of the mandate. It has involved increasingly frequent meetings and brought added pressure in turning round business, but it has all been done seamlessly and professionally. Since this is the last time that I will stand up as Chair of the Procedures Committee, I thank the Committee staff for all of their work during the mandate.”
“That has been reflected by including a reference to the relevant parts of the Act in Standing Order 58(1). I can confirm that the Audit Committee has seen and is content with the proposed amendment. <BR /> <BR />The last amendment relates to a new Standing Order 69 and a consequential amendment to Standing Order 81. They reflect the provisions and requirements of the Assembly’s new code of conduct. I can confirm that the Committee on Standards and Privileges has seen and is content with the proposed amendments. I will not go into a lot of detail about the provisions of the amendments, but I will outline how they affect the Standing Orders. The new Standing Order 69 details requirements in respect of the registration of Members' interests.”
“in Standing Order 44(2). <BR /> <BR />The second amendment has the same effect but in relation to the Minister of Justice. As the appointment of that ministerial post is set out in a different part of the Act and in a different Standing Order, a separate amendment is required. <BR /> <BR />The Committee has taken legal advice and been given assurance that the amendments that I have outlined are necessary and fit for purpose. On that basis, I am content to commend them to the House. <BR /> <BR />Members will be relieved to hear that the last two groups of amendments are far less convoluted. The first offers an amendment to Standing Order 58(1). It is needed to reflect the provisions of the new Public Services Ombudsman Act 2016, which sets out the additional role of the Audit Committee.”
“Clearly, when the two sets of circumstances occur at the same time, one must take precedence over the other. The revisions brought about by the Westminster legislation correct that, but Standing Orders, as crafted, do not make it clear. It is in order to avoid ambiguity that the amendments before us are being proposed. As I said, while the background is somewhat convoluted, the solution can be achieved very simply by inserting:”
“They require that time is made available for an opposition to be established and a Programme for Government agreed before ministerial posts are filled. They also introduce a requirement for Ministers to give an undertaking before taking their seats. Many of the changes can be brought about only by changes to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and they have been made by Westminster legislation that has recently completed its passage. <BR /> <BR />A key effect of the changes in respect of Standing Orders is that they allow two different time limits before d’Hondt must be run to appoint Ministers. In the case of the formation of the opposition and Programme for Government, it now allows 14 days, but, following the presentation of the determination to change the number of Departments and ministerial posts, it allows seven days.”
“Obviously, we will be establishing the formal structures of the new Assembly following the election, but we also need to facilitate a reduction in the number of Departments and their Ministers. In addition to both of these requirements, we will have changes that come about because of the Fresh Start Agreement.”
“<BR /> <BR />The only other amendment relating to the provision for an opposition is Standing Order 20A. This puts a facility in place to allow the first topical question to be put from a member of the opposition. There was no issue around the construction of this Standing Order and the Committee was content to bring it to the Assembly in its original form. <BR /> <BR />I will now move to the second group of Fresh Start amendments. As I said earlier, they relate to provisions in the agreement that do not relate to the opposition. The amendments are extremely simple. However, the reason for them and their effect is a bit more convoluted. The need for the amendments arises out of the unusual combination of circumstances taking effect at one time and at the start of the new mandate. What are they?”
“There was discussion around the order of items in the list of business included in Standing Order 10(1), but this was very low key and centred around the Committee’s wish to ensure the new category "Opposition Business" is given due recognition by its position in the list. Two options of where to insert the heading "Opposition Business" were considered: one above, and one below "Committee Business". The Committee confirmed that there was no legal reason for the order of the list and it confirmed that the order of the list had no impact on the passage of business through the Assembly. Having reassured itself on both of these points, the Committee agreed to bring forward the version of Standing Order 10(1) that is before us today.”
“The Standing Orders were scheduled for consideration in the last week of the mandate and while not passing them would normally be a simple matter of revisiting and reworking them before bringing them back to the Assembly, at this stage in the mandate it posed a risk, since failure to do so would leave the Assembly with no provision in Standing Orders to form an official opposition at the start of the new mandate. For these reasons, it was ultimately agreed to bring forward the new Standing Order 45A, based solely on the provisions of the Fresh Start Agreement. <BR /> <BR />This was by far the most contentious of the amendments that we see before us today.”
“This is in addition to those who are entitled to, but who decline, a ministerial post. There was a lot of discussion around this. However, even though the Committee recognised the potential to include this provision, the time left to make the amendments to Standing Orders was instrumental in its decision not to include it at this time. <BR /> <BR />The Committee recognised that although the Bill had passed its Final Stage, indicating the Assembly’s support for it, this had been done on a simple majority basis. Standing Orders, on the other hand, require cross-community support. The Committee was not convinced that cross-community support has been demonstrated in respect of the opposition Bill but was content that it had been demonstrated in respect of the agreement.”
“The Committee was clear that the draft amendment proposed by the Speaker in no way precluded changes being brought forward to action the Bill in the new mandate. It was also clear that it was within the Committee’s remit to introduce changes in advance of the Bill receiving Royal Assent if it saw fit. The Committee examined the new draft Standing Order with specific focus on the provisions of clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill. These relate to setting up an opposition in the new mandate, which would be done before Committees are formed. The clauses extend the definition of a qualifying party further than the Fresh Start Agreement does. They provide for a party whose members comprise 8% or more of the total number of Members of the Assembly to form an opposition or part of an opposition.”
“It is a slightly unusual approach, but the Speaker was given a clear mandate to do this by agreement of the Assembly on 8 February. In his letter, the Speaker advised the Committee that most of the provisions for an opposition required under the Fresh Start Agreement would be implemented administratively. However, there were three changes to Standing Orders envisaged and draft proposals were included. The Committee examined the Standing Orders in light of the agreement itself and against specific aspects of the opposition Bill which passed its Final Stage in the Assembly on 29 February. <BR /> <BR />The first amendment and the one which generated most discussion was the new Standing Order 45A. This introduces a provision and context for an official opposition. It also sets out how and when such an opposition will be formed.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The House will already be familiar with the Committee on Procedures's approach of bringing forward amendments to Standing Orders together to simplify the disposal of business. Today is such an instance. Although there are eight amendments to Standing Orders, they relate to three different areas of business, which are the Fresh Start Agreement, the code of conduct and the new Public Services Ombudsman Act 2016. <BR /> <BR />I think that the Standing Orders relating to the Fresh Start Agreement will attract most attention, so I will start with them. <BR />This group includes five Standing Orders on today’s Order Paper. Three of them put provisions in place for an opposition and I would like to talk about those first. They came to the Committee from the Speaker.”
“It suggests that the combination of paper-based, MLA-sponsored systems and an e-petitions facility will offer greater opportunities for raising media and public awareness, as well as greater opportunities for engagement with the legislative process. Therefore, on behalf of the Committee on Procedures, I commend the motion and the report to the House.”
“It has mitigated this by suggesting that the system be automated as far as possible. This has the added benefit of ensuring consistency when processing e-petitions. The Committee has also recommended that the process only be introduced after the summer recess of 2016. This allows time for development work during dissolution and refinement during the 2016 summer recess. <BR /> <BR />Before I bring my remarks to a close, this is perhaps a good time to thank the staff for the work that they have done to assist the Committee in bringing the report to the House. In closing, the Committee has given a great deal of consideration to the structure and function of the model before the House today.”
“The Committee considered that possible Committee actions could be to note the petition and take no further action; to refer it to a Department; or to conduct a full inquiry into the matter and bring a debate to the Chamber. However, what happens in practice will be for the relevant Committee to decide. <BR /> <BR />In formulating the model before the House, the Committee took account of the burden on resources that developing the system would have.”
“While the Committee wanted the model to offer a more visible outcome, it also wanted to make use of the existing Committee system without overburdening it by specifying the actions that Committees should take. The recommended process is the result of balancing those two aspects of that vision. The report therefore recommends that valid e-petitions are managed in the Business Office in a way similar to the way in which statutory rules are managed. The Business Office will identify the relevant Statutory Committee and pass the e-petition to it. If the matter is cross-cutting, a resolution on which Statutory Committee will take the lead will be agreed before the e-petition is sent on. Once received, the e-petition will be included in that Committee's agenda. However — perhaps most importantly — no action will be prescribed.”
“The Committee considered the relatively small geographical area served by the Assembly and the fact that there would be no dedicated public petitions Committee here. It ultimately agreed on and recommends a threshold of 100 signatures. The Committee was of the view that, since public petitions with fewer signatures could still be accepted through the existing MLA-sponsored process, no detriment would be caused by that threshold. However, it was sufficient to show that some level of public support for the petition is still required before it is actioned. <BR /> <BR />The final aspect of the model proposed concerns what will happen to an e-petition once the threshold of 100 signatures is reached.”
“The Committee noted that those had proved effective and were applicable to the circumstances of the Assembly. For that reason, the Committee recommends that they form part of the Assembly model. <BR /> <BR />In all other e-petition models examined, once a petition has passed the admissibility criteria, it is published on the website to gather signatures. Once it reaches an agreed number of signatures, it is considered valid, and action is taken by the legislature. The report suggests that for the Assembly model. However, the Committee needed to consider how many signatures the so-called threshold should be. In other models, thresholds varied from one to 100,000. However, because the circumstances of the Assembly are different from all the other legislatures, an area-specific solution needed to be found.”
“To identify and refine what those might be, the Committee looked at models operating effectively in other legislatures. It has sought to choose best practice from those to design the model recommended in the report. <BR /> <BR />Because it was aware of the possible cost of implementing such a scheme, the Committee first assured itself that existing IT and communications infrastructure could design and support an e-petitions process, and it considered the restrictions. Once that was done, the Committee considered the criteria that could be used to decide whether an e-petition was within the competence of the Assembly and whether it would be considered. Those are referred to in the report as admissibility criteria. Models in other legislatures showed great consistency in the admissibility criteria that they used.”
“After the Committee examined data on the outcomes of public petitions submitted in the last few years, it found that stakeholders' views were supported by the evidence. Examples existed of public petitions that raised public awareness of issues and others that increased engagement between Departments and action groups or individuals. Some had even influenced policy direction in the Departments to which they were referred. It is hardly surprising, then, that the Committee recommends that the existing process be retained. However, it is also of the view that the process should be enhanced by adding an e-petitions facility that does not require MLA sponsorship. To make such a process effective and to complement the existing process effectively, a different set of requirements was needed.”
“Their responses were unanimous in suggesting that introducing an e-petitions facility would be beneficial. Perhaps more surprisingly, all but one stakeholders were of the view that the current MLA-sponsored approach was well understood and still fit for purpose.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is perhaps less well known that the Assembly is the only legislature on these islands that still relies completely on a paper-based, MLA-sponsored public petitions process. In this age of Twitter and electronic media, that seemed strange and raised concerns with the Committee. I want to mention in particular Mairaid McMahon, who highlighted that and gave valuable assistance to the Committee in reaching stakeholders through the Make it Happen programme. Having considered the information provided, the Committee agreed to give specific attention to the use of electronic submissions of public petitions or e-petitions in its review of the process. Stakeholders who responded to the Committee's call for evidence were similarly concerned by the lack of an e-petitions process.”
“I hope that, since we have set a standard so far today, we might be ahead of ourselves. <BR /> <BR />The motion before the House today introduces the Committee's report on the review of the public petitions process. It looked at how public petitions were presented and managed in the Assembly and whether the process could be improved in any way. The way in which public petitions are brought to the Chamber at the moment is well understood in the Assembly; so, too, is what happens to them, because the Speaker explains that when he receives them. After that, though, there is little information published or feedback given on what happens to them. Petitioners and Members often have to follow up on outcomes themselves. That has been done in the past by asking Assembly questions or writing directly to Departments.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I beg to move”
“Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire le haghaidh a freagra. I thank the Minister for her answer. I agree with her about the sensitivity of this. However, it has come to public attention in a very dramatic way. I also agree with her about the family, but it is on having listened to the family on the radio this morning that I am asking about this. Does she believe that the refusal of access to these documents could compound the family's difficulties and grief?”
“Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a freagraí go dtí seo. I thank the Minister for her answer, which was very comprehensive. Will she elaborate on the ultimate aim of the strategy that she just outlined?”
“Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a freagraí go dtí seo. I thank the Minister for his answer and, indeed, his offer to feed into the review. He said that it would be comprehensive. I ask for some assurance that the antisocial behaviour issue is looked at. As he knows, there are some regulations in the social housing sector that give the ability to deal with that when it happens. At times, perhaps not often, that can destroy a whole street or area. If we could look at that in the private sector, it would be very helpful.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. In continuance of the warm glow around you, Minister, I add my best wishes as you take up your responsibilities in the Department.”
“Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagraí go dtí seo. I thank the Minister for his answers up to now, and welcome that the Department is still committed to the entire project. Does he have any comment to make on departmental engagement with local communities on the management of the facilities?”
“Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire le haghaidh a freagra go dtí seo. I thank the Minister for her answer. Is this project eligible for TEN-T funding or any other EU funding?”
“Gabhaim buíochas leis an LeasChéad-Aire as a fhreagra go dtí seo. I thank the deputy First Minister for his answer. Given what he said, does he feel that the British Government have kept the devolved regions up to date on the negotiations and involved them in them?”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. I thank the Minister for his comprehensive answer. I agree that doing nothing is not an option as far as victims and survivors are concerned. Does the Minister agree with me that the lack of disclosure, which I think he mentioned earlier, by various agencies of the British Government, including the PSNI, to families and, indeed, to inquests and other courts is a huge issue and that justice delayed, in some cases for a number of decades, is justice denied?”
“Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagraí go dtí seo. I thank the Minister for his answer. Following on from some of the information that he gave us, does he have a view or is there any notion that, outside the Four Seasons group, there might be others at risk? Are there any checks that can be done on that? He will be aware that there is nervousness about the homes.”
“Gahbaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra go dtí seo. I thank the Minister for his answer. I would like to join others who have congratulated the local entrepreneurs behind the success of those two restaurants. The Minister will know that there is a demand from restaurateurs about reducing their VAT burdens. Perhaps he could speak about what plans he has to support that demand and perhaps bring the rates down to, I dare say, those on the other side of the border.”
“Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagraí go dtí seo. I thank the Minister for his answers. He will be aware that this is a substantial scheme. Does he plan to meet some of the many traders and residents who will be affected? They want the regeneration of the area, but they have considerable concerns.”