Danny Kennedy
Newry and Armagh · Ulster Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“<BR /> <BR />I know the circumstances that we are in, but my hope is that departmental officials will continue to explore these issues and find solutions so that, at the earliest point, those solutions can be delivered to my constituency and to the people who have such frustration with the lack of service.”
“This situation is also prevalent in other rural areas of Northern Ireland. People in areas such as Lissummon, Ballygorman, Cladymilltown, Altnamackan, Loughgall, Mullaghglass and countless others, unfortunately, all of which are located in my constituency, find themselves in a position currently where they are provided with little or no e…”
“I, with others, receive regular contact from my constituents on this issue. It is abundantly clear from the representations that I receive that the lack of broadband provision, particularly in rural areas, impacts in many ways on families and businesses that reside in various locations across the constituency.”
“Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I thank you and the Business Committee for affording me the opportunity to debate the issue of broadband provision directly relating to my constituency of Newry and Armagh. I also place on record my good wishes to you as you leave the House, and I wish you well for the future.”
“The lack of high-quality broadband, for instance, has an impact on the ability of many rural businesses to function efficiently, placing them clearly at a disadvantage to other competitors in their particular field.”
“I could continue to detail many more circumstances, but I want other Members to contribute and to hear what the Minister has to say. I take this opportunity to make an impassioned plea to the Minister to pursue, within a quick time frame, the network improvements that are so clearly required.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,097 lines we hold for Danny Kennedy, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 22.
“I want to place on record — on behalf of myself and, I sense, on behalf of other Committee members — acknowledgment of Alban Maginness's contribution, not only to the Justice Committee but to the House. I thank him for that, particularly in respect of justice. <BR /> <BR />I have not served a very long period on the Justice Committee, but I very much agree with the genuine compliments paid to the Chair and the other members and, indeed, to the Clerk and her officials. <BR /> <BR />I want to share some observations on the visits that members of the Committee, including me, made to the problem-solving courts in Red Hook, in Brooklyn and in Brownsville in the New York area and to the Glasgow drug court. Those visits were most useful and insightful.”
“I am grateful to the Member for giving way. I will add my congratulations to the Chair and other members of the Justice Committee for their very important and innovative work. I am sure that the Member agrees with my sentiments.”
“I thank the Minister for his reply. He has conceded that the motivating factor behind those decisions was to save costs, with, unfortunately, patients and service users being overlooked and ignored. Those decisions were spun as being temporary, but of course many have become permanent. Can the Minister explain how decisions such as the closure of the minor injuries unit in Armagh correspond with and complement departmental policies such as Choose Well and seek to keep people out of emergency departments?”
“The fund could also be beneficial to Church groups that do not avail themselves of lottery funding. Will there be any priority in the criteria for such faith groups?”
“I thank the First Minister for her response thus far. Will she use her considerable influence to ensure that County Armagh Development Association is informed at the earliest opportunity about its funding allocation to create maximum certainty for their employees and user groups?”
“I commend all those who have promoted that and ensured its final inclusion, and I welcome the consensus that was reached on it between the Minister, the Department and the Justice Committee. The Chair of the Committee, in particular, was a strong advocate of the schedule being included. Revenge porn has become a very serious matter of concern in our modern society, and I hope very much that the measure will at least give some protections to people and some warning to those who are prepared to engage in such disgraceful activity. <BR /> <BR />Generally, this is a stage that we can all welcome. I am minded to paraphrase the words of Young Mr Grace in 'Are You Being Served?': we have all done very well.”
“I join others in taking this opportunity to welcome and endorse the proposed amendments, which essentially tidy up the Justice (No. 2) Bill. On amendment No 6, I was interested in the exchange between Mr Maginness, the Committee Chair and others about the terms that are being used and how all-embracing they are. I wonder whether the Minister, in consultation with the Department of Health, considered the term "and/or paramedics". It seems to me that "ambulance worker" covers part of the work but not its entirety. However, I am generally content with the amendment. <BR /> <BR />The new schedule on what is termed revenge porn is entirely sensible.”
“The fundamental reason for Lord Empey's attempts in the House of Lords is that he, like me and my party, trusts Westminster legislation so that others cannot tamper with it for political convenience in this Assembly or a future one. Even through Standing Orders, there are mechanisms by which parties locally can deploy measures that would be in their favour, whereas Westminster legislation is more firmly based.”
“I thank the Member for his comments, and it seems that I am a member of a party, amongst other parties, who are now "swingers". I do not think that that term has ever been levelled before, but clearly some people are enjoying the thought of the potential of being swingers.”
“I think that would be something that could revitalise the Chamber, and, on this day in the leap year, the Bill may not be a leap, but I think it represents some progress.”
“Regardless of the many hurdles faced, I hope that we will now see opposition structures in place for parties to occupy should they wish following the next Assembly election. I think we all know about the public disconnect from the House; I do not think there is a party or Members that have not acknowledged that publicly. I hope that we can see a shift in how we operate here. I have hope that, with an opposition in place, the public may view this place differently. <BR /> <BR />I do not think — the sponsor will probably concede this point — the final Bill is perfect. I do not think it is what many of us envisaged, but I hope that we will see an opposition in place, post-election, whatever the make-up here.”
“I am not sure whether it was arrogance on the part of the DUP that it perhaps thinks it may never be a party in opposition or whether it was simple insecurity over the prospect of facing greater scrutiny, but whatever its reasons, I am left slightly perplexed by the limiting of these rights.”
“The Bill faced the issue of having to reconcile the needs of the two main parties trying to force through their preferred way of doing things. I am thinking, in particular, of what is outlined for speaking rights for opposition parties in this House. We have seen the allocated business days reduced and attempts to enhance speaking time and widen the scope of questioning voted down. That is unfortunate, and I warn that, ultimately, it will prove to be quite foolish.”
“Sadly, the March 2015 deadline set at those talks for the introduction of opposition measures was not met. <BR /> <BR />We remain totally convinced of the need for opposition structures to be put in place. The reasons why this Assembly was structured as it was in 1998 have been acknowledged at all stages of the debate, but we should always aspire to improve what we are doing and move in time with our ever-evolving society. It is clear from the increasing disconnect that we are failing to do so when it comes to the structures of this Chamber. <BR /> <BR />One of the problems faced by anyone attempting to lead on this issue is that most parties and Members of this House have differing ideas as to the shape of opposition and how it should be formed.”
“At times, it looked as though the Bill was set to be buried by the measures brought forward in the Stormont House Agreement and the subsequent so-called Fresh Start Agreement, but, seemingly, against all the odds, here we are at Final Stage. <BR /> <BR />There has been much said during the passage of the Bill, and I do not intend to repeat what I have said at previous stages, but the issue of opposition is one that the Ulster Unionist Party is passionate about and one that I will spend a few moments on later. We have attempted to introduce opposition structures to this House via Westminster, with Lord Empey tabling amendments in the House of Lords in an attempt to make it a reality, and we argued for its necessity at the Stormont House talks.”
“I was not prepared for the sudden end to Mr Attwood's speech. He does not normally end so quickly, but we enjoyed his contribution all the more, I think. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Final Stage of the Bill. This Bill has had a rather more tumultuous journey than most that pass through this House. It is fair to say that the current version is almost unrecognisable from that which was first introduced. I am sure that, to a degree, that may disappoint the sponsor of the Bill, but successfully guiding a Bill through the House when you are not a Member of one of the two largest parties is no easy task.”
“Given the uncertainty of the outcome of the general election in the Republic of Ireland and the fact that we are now in the dying days of the Obama Administration in Washington, what is the likelihood of meaningful engagement with the American Administration around St Patrick's Day?”
“I am grateful to the Member for giving way. It is an interesting discussion, and I want to try to allay some of the Member's fears. The one thing, I think, I will agree with him on is that there are few crooks as despicable as religious crooks. I have not met that many, but anyway. My experience — I am not sure whether this is his and other Members' experience — is that the appointment of trustees and senior appointments in particular Churches owes more to a life of service and dedication and a proven track record of honesty and integrity. I am not saying that charities of the state have any lesser standards, but I think Churches carry standards and generally support only nominees whom they are confident of and who will not turn out to be or to have been religious crooks.”
“I am grateful to the Member for giving way. I am interested in his view. I should at the outset declare an interest as an elder in Bessbrook Presbyterian Church. The Member will know from his experience in Church affairs that it is possible for people who previously had convictions for a variety of reasons to change their lives — particularly to have changed their lives as a result of religious conviction — and to lead then very respectable, upright and law-abiding lives. The Member seems to be precluding those people from serving; from being forgiven, if you like, having served their sentence from the state. He is not prepared to see them forgiven by the Church.”
“I am sure that I am not alone in the hope that, in any dispute between a pupil called O'Dowd and someone else called Overend, the teacher would not be called Weir.”
“It is like the Fermanagh and South Tyrone selection.”
“I am grateful to the Member for giving way. Does she recall that, in debates in the House in April 2013 and April 2015, Sinn Féin representatives, among them Mr Hazzard, Michaela Boyle, Mr Sheehan and Maeve McLaughlin, expressed themselves to be in favour of repealing the FETO exemption? Is it not absolutely unbelievable that they continue to table a petition of concern to oppose the very measure that they spoke in favour of in April 2013 and April 2015?”
“I am grateful to the Member for giving way. Would the Member agree that it is nothing short of disgraceful that SDLP and Sinn Féin Members have tabled a petition of concern to oppose this very sensible change in the legislation, a change that will bring an end to discrimination? Yet it is opposed by parties claiming to be the champions of equality.”
“<BR /> <BR />The debate will not be that lengthy, but the votes and the consequence of those votes will be more telling in how the Bill emerges at Final Stage. That outcome is one that we look to with great interest.”
“I am grateful to the Member for his intervention. It is clear that the Alliance Party is still sore at having lost East Belfast to the agreed unionist candidate on that occasion. Sour grapes do not contribute meaningfully to the debate. <BR /> <BR />We should return to joint election and, indeed, a shared future, if it is to mean anything. The largest parties agreed a shared future strategy on their own. I do not think that any of the other parties signed up to that. If it is to be truly shared and not simply shared out, there should be a joint election. OFMDFM and its future reincarnation — the Executive Office — will have to be inhabited by a unionist party and a nationalist party. A joint election, with a majority of unionists and a majority of nationalists voting in it, would best reflect that.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 23 has been referred to, particularly by Mr Attwood and less so by others. It concerns the joint election of FM and dFM. In moving away from the joint election by cross-community vote that was put in place in 1998, we have seen the compounding of sectarian headcounts at Assembly elections. Since the changes made at St Andrews, we have seen the DUP and Sinn Féin using it, during elections in particular, to go to the doors either scaremongering about the possibility of a member of Sinn Féin taking up the role of First Minister or to rally people behind the cause of beating unionism to the post.”
“My memory of Ministers taking each other to court was that it was fairly unedifying for the Assembly and Executive generally and for local politics. <BR /> <BR />As indicated at Consideration Stage, we are happy to support amendment No 18, which concerns the legislative timetable. There has to be a better way of passing legislation through the House than the tidal wave that we have seen arriving in the latter part of this mandate. There has been a rush to the gate. This late sitting, other late sittings in recent days and predicted late sittings are part of that. Putting an onus on the Executive to lay a legislative timetable can provide a better and steadier flow of legislation through the House, allowing more time for scrutiny and proper debate.”
“I am grateful to the member for giving that information.”
“I am grateful to the member for his intervention. The improvement that is outlined in this amendment will at least satisfy some of the public concerns about Executive Ministers being at loggerheads or capable of going on solo runs. It is outrageous that we do not have a process of independent investigation of any alleged breaches of the ministerial code.”
“The current situation, where we have a process for independent investigation and reporting for MLAs but not for Ministers, is in many ways ridiculous and unsustainable. To continue to fail to take action on this will only serve to undermine public confidence in this House.”
“This amendment is an attempt to broaden out the opportunities for the leaders of parties making up opposition to question the First Minister and deputy First Minister. It seems right that they should take up the first two questions in response to questions for oral answer and statements — alongside topical questions, as is already outlined in the Bill. There is not a great deal of detail on what enhancements the opposition will receive to their contributions in the House. This is a fairly modest adjustment and is compatible with what should be the natural order of things in a Government and opposition model of democracy. <BR /> <BR />We support the amendments tabled in the names of Ms Sugden and Mr Agnew on alleged breaches of the ministerial code.”
“I do not think that, after all this time, we want to come back after the election and have parties unable to form an official opposition. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 7 and 8, tabled by my party, are the removal of the need for deputy leader and opposition leader questioning rights. The first is to tidy up something on which I had an exchange earlier with Mr McCallister, who loves terms like deputy leader. We have always felt that any titles within the opposition should be informal. Deputy leader seems to be a party position. We are not convinced of the need to have that formal position within the opposition, especially given that, in this scenario, it would be formed by just one party. <BR /> <BR />On amendment No 8, it is vital that any opposition has adequate opportunity to question, scrutinise and debate in the House.”
“We have seen the lack of delivery since 2007. We have seen the relationship between the larger, more dominant parties in the Executive and the smaller ones. Indeed, we have seen Executive parties voting against the Budget, the Programme for Government and other issues. Rather than continuing to see, effectively, an opposition within the Government, hopefully we can create a robust enough space for those parties that decide that they do not wish to be part of the Government, for one reason or another, to provide an effective opposition voice. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 5 and 19 are on the timing of the Bill's coming into effect. We can support those proposals to prevent a situation where parties still cannot form an official opposition following successful passage of the Bill.”
“It should also encourage a more dynamic democracy in this House.”
“<BR /> <BR />I will now look specifically at some of the amendments, beginning with amendment No 4 on qualifying parties. We thought through who should be eligible for the rights and entitlements that will come with forming an opposition, as well as the differentials between parties that are in opposition to Government and parties that are not in the Government. In this amendment, the threshold has been heightened since the previous stage, but it still seems, broadly, a pragmatic approach that recognises that the institutions should evolve. It provides better future-proofing mechanisms than if the threshold were at the other end of the scale and parties were excluded at the point that they no longer qualified for a Ministry. It gives more space for any future size or shape of the Assembly.”
“It is the norm in pretty much every democracy, yet we are still waiting patiently to see those structures put in place in this House. We have seen the disengagement between this House and the public outside these walls. Offering them an alternative, or the chance to change their Government, could be a transformational way of reengaging the wider population and the electorate. There also needs to be better governance and increased delivery. We are seeing other measures, including a reduction in the number of Departments and MLAs, which, hopefully, will lead to improved governance in Northern Ireland. I am also hopeful that a number of the amendments tabled today that I will touch on will help to address public apathy towards this House.”
“The day is far spent, and some are far from home. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill at Further Consideration Stage. It is always a pleasure to follow Mr Attwood. Neither I nor my party always agree with what he says, but at least he makes a contribution to the House in a very thought-provoking way, as he has tonight. <BR /> <BR />There were a huge number of amendments at the previous stage, and there are quite a few at this stage that, if made, will, once again, totally change the shape of the Bill from what we saw when it was introduced. Clearly, the sponsor of the Bill is keen to salvage whatever he can in the circumstances that he finds himself in. <BR /> <BR />My party's support for the establishment of an opposition in this House has long been on the record.”
“I am grateful to the Member for giving way. He seems to have an unhealthy fixation with the term "deputy leader". Given the difficult experience he had in both the posts that he held in different political parties, I wonder at the wisdom. We are not particularly stuck on titles, particularly "deputy leader". I have been deputy leader too.”
“Amendment No 239 changes the word "treatment" in "supervision and treatment order" to "assessment". That is the template for a further three amendments. The main change in amendment No 470, brought forward by the Minister, is the introduction of a new schedule to deal with the supervision and assessment orders. We are satisfied that this will help the situation and we are content to support it. The Committee amendments were all pretty much unanimously agreed. In that spirit, we are happy to continue our support for them.”
“I will not delay the House on such an important evening. The majority of this group of amendments are from the Minister, and they largely form part of a tidying-up exercise. Therefore, there is no great difficulty with them. <BR /> <BR />In terms of the criminal justice issues, including supervision and assessment orders, psychological harm, detention in a hospital and restraining orders, in amendment No 141, as others have said, the Minister is moving to close a loophole. The amendment is the template for a further 20 amendments in the group that we are content to support. In those amendments, there is the change of language from "may" to "must", which we are content to support.”
“I am grateful to the Minister for his initial response, but he will know that it is now over six years since the report was forwarded to the Executive for action. Surely, by any standard, action should have been taken by now to improve a very cumbersome system that does not provide read-across and proper accountability. What steps is the Minister prepared to outline? He has indicated that, with the new number of Departments, there may be some changes. Change is necessary for proper accountability, and I think that the entire House will be anxious to see that.”
“I am grateful to say that the draft orders are consistent, good and sensible, and I am happy to indicate support for them. They are consistent with UK-wide codes of practice but are now perhaps made more local because of devolution. <BR /> <BR />In welcoming the orders being put in place by the Minister and the House, I ask the Minister to reflect on what memorandums of understanding or issues we have with the Republic of Ireland, given the high propensity for cross-border criminality. Of course, the very unedifying events in the criminal world in Dublin at present give rise to concern as to whether we have memorandums of understanding and similar codes of practice that can be worked to the benefit of the justice authorities in Northern Ireland.”
“I thank the First Minister for her answer. Can the First Minister confirm that no discussions or negotiations are taking place at present with any other parties on the issue of dealing with the past?”
“<BR /> <BR />For the reasons that I have outlined, I will be opposing all the amendments being put forward today. I hope that this debate will continue to be conducted in a gracious and respectful manner, and that the review to be initiated by the Health Minister will be helpful in dealing with these very complex issues.”
“We should invest in care for all our children by treating those we can, and caring for those we cannot treat. The amendments in relation to rape and incest, in my view, would deprive a child of life when that child had no influence over the circumstances of its conception. It would be wrong to deprive a child of life because of the character of its father. Abortion is not an easy solution to rape, and cannot alleviate or undo in any way the crime committed. It does not bring healing to rape victims, and creating a second victim never repairs the damage to the first. It is of great importance that women in this situation are offered every support, psychologically and in all ways physically, and obviously given the option of putting their child up for adoption if that is right for them.”
“I note that the preamble to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states that each child:”
“<BR /> <BR />As public debate on the issue continues, the need to provide excellent perinatal care in every part of Northern Ireland for every woman facing a pregnancy crisis must feature more prominently. Indeed, practical, emotional and spiritual support for women and their families is absolutely essential if we are truly committed as a society to life, well-being and human dignity. I believe that every human life is valuable and must be protected. It should not matter how profoundly disabled a baby is, or whether that condition will ultimately limit the ability to survive outside of the womb, or how the child was conceived. All human life is equal and worthy of protection. Unborn children in these instances require no less protection and respect than any other unborn child. Indeed, they are some of the most vulnerable in society.”
“I am grateful to the Member for his contribution. Clearly, these are very complex and sensitive issues that need to be treated very sensitively. I am seeking to do that in my contribution, as I recognise others will as well. <BR /> <BR />While I, of course, recognise that, on many occasions, it is appropriate to introduce amendments at Consideration Stage, and the earlier groups of amendments did that, I do not believe that this is such an occasion. This is an issue of enormous sensitivity, involving deeply held moral beliefs about the nature of life and the care of women. This series of amendments proposes a major change to the law. Changing the law in this area, if it is to be done, needs to proceed with great care and widespread engagement with relevant stakeholders. On this occasion, that simply has not happened.”
“Ethically and morally, that is extremely important, as it ensures that the termination of pregnancy is viewed as a life-preserving measure. In contrast, if the proposed amendments were passed, they will apparently allow pregnancies to be terminated solely in light of the condition of the foetus. That represents a significant shift in principle, the implications of which do not appear to have been fully explored. Legislation of such importance requires detailed consideration. However, the stage at which the amendments were tabled did not allow for scrutiny by the Justice Committee, nor the submission of evidence by interested groups and individuals.”
“<BR /> <BR />The House will know that the Ulster Unionist Party regards these issues as matters of conscience, thereby leaving Members free to speak as they feel led. <BR /> <BR />The amendment raises complex and sensitive issues about the lives and well-being of women, their families and the unborn. They need to be handled with compassion and grace in the context of affirming the value of human life. As a member of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, I hold to a strongly pro-life position, whilst recognising that there are situations in which medical abortion might be necessary to protect the life or well-being of the mother. <BR /> <BR />The current law requires that the very difficult decisions that are taken in those exceptional cases are based on risk to the mother's life and/or long-term health.”