Kellie Armstrong
Strangford · Alliance Party · Northern Ireland
“I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the Fisheries, Aquaculture and Water Environment Bill. It is timely and important. Miss McIlveen, a fellow MLA for the Strangford constituency, has just spoken.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Bill reflects the realities of the post-Brexit landscape by aligning protections here with those in other UK jurisdictions and the UK Fisheries Act. That consistency is important for standards, enforcement and international confidence in our products.”
“Last year, I met the Department and we discussed that. The opportunities for seaweed farming in Strangford lough are wonderful, and the opportunities from seaweed that Queen's University has identified are incredible. We are lucky to have those opportunities on our doorstep, as long as there is licensing and it is properly looked after.”
“Moving beyond managing individual fisheries, the Bill recognises the interconnected nature of our rivers, loughs and seas — an approach that is very much in line with Alliance's commitment to evidence-based environmental policy. The inclusion of a national benefit objective is also significant.”
“A while ago, we saw that commercial bottom trawling had all but decimated the horse mussel population in Strangford lough. It has since been changed to a special area of conservation. That limits a lot of activity in the lough, which is not a bad thing considering that horse mussels are coming back.”
“They allow for timely action on lower-level offences without over-burdening the courts while still acting as a meaningful deterrent. If only everybody were acting properly, we would not need to have those deterrents, but we are where we are, and the Bill hopes to improve upon that.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,635 lines we hold for Kellie Armstrong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 23 of 53.
“I thank the Minister. On behalf of Alliance, I support all the amendments in group 1 that are in the name of the Minister. The Speaker has written to us all and asked us to speak directly to the amendments, so I will move straight to those that I have issues with. <BR /> <BR />The first is amendment No 13. As others said, amendment No 13, which is in the name of Mr Gerry Carroll, is absolutely something that we would all like to see. Unfortunately, the wording of the amendment and its implications could cause difficulties for tenants as opposed to giving them a 10% reduction of their rent and then a fixed rent for three years.”
“Thank you, Minister. I am an MLA for Strangford — there are three of us in the room — which is the constituency with the longest coastline, so you will understand why I am bringing you back to marine and offshore energy. Given the discussion at the British-Irish Council, what provision are you making in the coming three-year Budget to take forward tidal and wave energy projects, such as the hydrokinetic turbines that are being tested by Queen's University, GKinetic Energy and Grant's Electrical Services?”
“Thank you, Minister. You have just mentioned the number of poles that have gone up. Some of those hard-to-reach areas are in areas of outstanding natural beauty (AONBs). Can you confirm whether part of the contract with Fibrus Networks was to put the poles in AONBs underground, as opposed to overground?”
“Again, I do not think that it is fair for companies and people who work in betting offices, who are protected from Sunday working, to have that ability removed from them when online gambling is available every Sunday. While online gambling keeps making money and taking money out of the Northern Ireland economy, I do not think that it is fair that we take that opportunity away from some of our more viable gambling providers in Northern Ireland.”
“There are other pieces of information that we will, I am sure, hear from the Department as we move forward. <BR /> <BR />Finally, I cannot support Mr Allister's wishes to remove clauses from the Bill. I say that because I did ask questions in Committee. In particular, I asked why Easter Sunday was not included, for instance, as one of the days that would not be included. It came back to the fact that the sector and other people said, "But what about the significant sports that are played on Sundays, with betting taking place on them?" That could be football or GAA matches. I do not go into betting offices often, and I do not go into bingo halls often, so I have taken my lead from people who I have spoken to and the wider input that we have had.”
“Every time you see "duty of care", you just go, "Yes, that is no problem". Amendment No 5 links the revocations contained in the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 with this amending legislation. I have asked why article 28 was not included in amendment No 5. Article 28 provides for the revocation of bookmaking office licences, and I think that that may be something that we will work on at Further Consideration Stage. I have discussed it with the proposers of that amendment, and it is something that I think will be worthwhile considering if we are bringing in the other revocation parts. Amendment No 6 would have tied in the ban on the use of credit cards by updating the definition of "money" in article 2 of the 1985 Order. As we know, that is a technical issue.”
“As it is not going to be moved, unfortunately, I will not be able to support that. I would have supported that because, having spoken to a number of gambling operators, I have to say that the 1% does not seem too extreme but could bring in a significant amount of money to support the levy. However, I understand where there are concerns, because online gambling providers will not be required to pay anything towards the levy. Is it fair that our land-based operators — people who are working here in Northern Ireland and employing people in Northern Ireland — would be asked to contribute to a levy when the people who are making the most money — the online companies — would not have to contribute anything? <BR /> <BR />I will support the DUP's amendments. Amendment No 4 adds a duty of care. That is always a good move.”
“I am pleased that the Minister and the Department will ensure that they will consult persons who have suffered from or been affected by addiction to gambling or other forms of harm or exploitation associated with gambling, and persons who have experience or knowledge of issues relating to such addiction, harm or exploitation. This includes the families and loved ones of the person who is suffering from the addiction. The Department will also consult the gambling industry. I have to say that I am not best pleased about that, because I think that a levy should be set for the industry rather than with the industry. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 2, tabled by the SDLP, would have required licence holders to contribute 1% of their annual gross gambling income to support the industry levy.”
“Members, including myself, were reassured that the 1985 Order contains existing powers in article 137(4) — the power to vary the frequency of lotteries — together with article 137(21) — the power to amend amounts — to meet the policy intention of prohibiting societies from running too many draws with tickets at, or close to, the upper limit of the proposed £100. I will therefore support amendment No 1 as brought forward by the Minister. <BR /> <BR />On clause 14, there are concerns about the wording of new article 172A(6), which deals with which groups will be consulted about the levy. Those concerns were accepted by the Minister and are addressed today in amendment No 3.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Bill is designed to strengthen the existing regulatory protections for operators and consumers by amending current provisions within the 1985 Order in relation to the opening days of licensed bookmakers' offices and bingo clubs, the requirements for membership of bingo clubs, rules on society lotteries, qualification and requirements for the granting of certain licences, the operation of promotional prize competitions, a definition of cheating and the enforceability of gambling contracts. <BR /> <BR />I move now to the amendments. Clause 9 addresses the ticket price limit for societies' lotteries. The Committee requested that the Minister increase that to a suitable level, based on the evidence received. The Minister proposed an increase in the maximum ticket price from £1 to £100. The Committee agreed to that amendment.”
“I agree, and the frustration is that it is not for our Minister or the Department for Communities to deal with the National Lottery. As I said, it will be for Westminster to review and look at that. When we are talking about gambling addiction, we cannot forget all the products that are available in Northern Ireland and, unfortunately, outside of our control: online gambling and the National Lottery activities.”
“It is for Westminster to legislate upon. Many people see its contributions to the community and voluntary sector, heritage projects and other activities, but it cannot be forgotten that it is a gambling product, and point-of-sale scratch cards are often a very easy way for those who have addictive personalities to access gambling in their corner shop.”
“It is easy to access: we have the opportunity to bet through our phone; it is with us everywhere we go. There are few controls or limits to online gambling, and there is no mechanism to force it to contribute to an industry levy that is used to prevent addiction to gambling and support those who are addicted. As much as I would have preferred the Bill to control online gambling, that was not within the scope of the Bill. The Minister has confirmed that a second phase of gambling legislation will be brought forward in the next mandate. It will aim to address those concerns. <BR /> <BR />I have also been vocal about the National Lottery. Its point-of-contact scratch cards and online activities contribute to gambling addiction in Northern Ireland, yet it is outside the remit of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
“As the Alliance Party spokesperson for communities, I will, first, speak generally about the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Amendment) Bill, and then about each of the amendments. <BR /> <BR />The purpose of the Bill, which contains 16 clauses and one schedule, is to amend certain provisions within the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, with the overarching objective to address anomalies in the Order regarding the regulation of land-based betting, gaming, lottery and amusement activities. New regulatory controls on gambling are long overdue and need to address the protection of young people and other vulnerable members of society. They are also needed now to consider the technical advance of online or remote gambling. Online gambling is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.”
“I am so absolutely furious at the statement. I apologise to the Minister: I know that it is not your fault and that you are the messenger. However, oh my goodness, I am so cross about it. You are telling me that £300 million will sit idle while upwards of 6,000 people are homeless in Northern Ireland. Are you telling me that the families and children who do not have a permanent home will not get help because the DUP has pulled its First Minister out?”
“It was clear from the evidence supplied to the Committee that there is support for the ratification of several international human rights instruments in domestic law. <BR /> <BR />After many hours of input, witness submissions and the collation of papers, this report, unfortunately, provides no concrete recommendations. All I can say is this: what a waste of an opportunity, time and money.”
“That is linked to non-retrogression and how that could be challenged in the event of policy change by the UK Government such as the recent removal of the £20 uplift to universal credit. Alliance would subsequently support an obligation on the relevant Department to demonstrate that it took reasonable measures to achieve the progressive realisation of rights. <BR /> <BR />Alliance would like to see the inclusion of a broad heading of a right to a healthy environment that should be supplemented by stand-alone legislation enacted by the Assembly. Alliance remains supportive of the Good Friday Agreement provision that a bill of rights for Northern Ireland should draw on appropriate international instruments and experience.”
“Not just at the moment. <BR /> <BR />We would like to see other rights included. However, each would be greatly enhanced by their inclusion in supplementary stand-alone legislation. That would allow for the incorporation of parts of ratified international instruments through Northern Ireland legislation, so it would not go over the head of the UK Government. <BR /> <BR />A progressive realisation clause should be carefully drafted and included in a bill of rights. As community spokesperson, I am concerned that there will be further instances where, for example, one welfare benefit is reduced while another is increased. That means that some people are worse off while others are better off.”
“In this context, Alliance does not believe that a bill of rights should single out groups for special treatment. Therefore, we do not support any differentiation between victims of crime and conflict-related crime. <BR /> <BR />With respect to second-generation rights, Alliance strongly believes that a bill of rights should enshrine a right to healthcare; education rights should include a right to integrated education as we take the view that this is a supplementary right that meets the particular circumstances test that appears in the 1998 agreement; and identity and cultural rights, given their particular relevance in Northern Ireland.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I might not need to take that. As a woman who is a Catholic, I will maybe remind you of that at some other time. <BR /> <BR />Alliance would like to see in a bill of rights the first-generation rights that are largely consistent with those in the ECHR and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These rights are long established domestically and internationally. We are concerned, however, that protocol 12 of the European Convention, relating to the prohibition of discrimination, has not been ratified by the UK. Therefore, the Assembly does not have the legislative competence to incorporate it into Northern Irish law. <BR /> <BR />Concerning victims of crime, article 14 of the ECHR outlaws discrimination on the basis of any status.”
“Not just at the moment. <BR /> <BR />— people with disabilities or other section 75 groupings, or considers people who sit in a number of those groups. Most people have multiple and complex identities, and the rights should first attach to the individual rather than to groupings. <BR /> <BR />I will give way.”
“We see that continued through fair employment monitoring that counts how many Catholics and Protestants are employed, ignoring whether there is fair representation of black, Asian and minority ethnic people —”
“Given the intersectional nature of rights, this has the potential to cause disadvantage to groups that we should wish to protect. <BR /> <BR />I will give an example of where such a diminution of rights occurs. Currently, there are two openly LGBTQ+ people in the Assembly. As a result of group rights known as parallel consent, their votes count for less than those of others in respect of legislation and some motions. The consequence is a form of indirect discrimination against gay people in the Assembly and thus in society among the electorate, albeit unintended. <BR /> <BR />Similarly, under 50:50 recruitment, the groupings of Catholic, Protestant or other meant that black, Asian and minority ethnic applicants, despite being an under-represented group, were not recognised as such.”
“As provided in the Committee report, I will confirm why Alliance supports a bill of rights. Alliance believes that ascribing special rights to two communities results in direct and indirect discrimination against those who do not define as either. More broadly, speaking of solely two communities entrenches division when the purpose of a process like this is to produce a bill of rights with the potential to unite all sections of society behind it. <BR /> <BR />While the right to associate to exercise our rights is a freedom that we enjoy and that should be protected, there is also a right not to do so without any resulting diminution of rights. By placing the emphasis on group rights and on rights for specific groups in the manner that the 1998 and 2006 agreements did, we are often entrenching inequality.”
“With over 80% of consultees confirming that a bill of rights is important, it is extremely concerning that the block to progress is the lack of an expert panel and a DUP submission that, I feel, undermined the process. Although there was consensus on 23 September 2021 that a bill of rights should be enacted at Westminster, in line with the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement, no decision could be taken while there was no expert panel.”
“The Ad Hoc Committee was due to be supported by an expert panel that was to be appointed by the FM and DFM, but the recruitment for that panel has not taken place. <BR /> <BR />The failure to appoint an expert panel is disappointing, especially when contributors felt that the human rights of many individuals and groups in Northern Ireland are not sufficiently protected. Disability, age, religion or belief, cultural background and ethnic group were among the areas in which stakeholders thought that additional human rights protections were needed. Indeed, a majority of respondents to the Committee's survey — 61% — and most of the young people who participated in focus groups disagreed with the premise that:”
“We believe that that would have been an opportunity to create a bill of rights that everyone could support, that would be sufficiently durable to take account of the changing circumstances in an evolving and diversifying Northern Ireland and that would, at last, move us on from the out-of-date premise of two separate communities. <BR /> <BR />Alliance wants a bill of rights that is consistent with European and international human rights standards and is capable of guiding legislative and policy development now and into the future. However, as it stands, we have no bill of rights, and, instead, we have a Committee report that highlights the inability that parties still have to recognise and support the rights of people living here.”
“I rise on behalf of the Alliance Party to discuss the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on a Bill of Rights. My Alliance colleague Paula Bradshaw was the party's representative on the Committee and will respond later as Deputy Chair when she makes a winding-up speech on the motion. <BR /> <BR />Alliance is supportive of a strong, stand-alone bill of rights for Northern Ireland, and, with the review of the Human Rights Act at Westminster, we feel that more than ever. We welcomed the inclusion of a commitment in the 'New Decade, New Approach' document to establishing the Ad Hoc Committee to move the process forward.”
“Thank you very much, Minister, for saying that you have started a consultation and that people can respond to it up until 8 March. Are you concerned about the staggering replacement caravan costs that are being forced by site owners on people who live in their caravan? Will that be dealt with in the Caravans Act or a future caravan Act?”
“To be honest, I am almost there with you, Ms Ferguson, and may be minded to vote with you, just as long as you can give me some clarification that clause 3 will allow the review that I talk about in my amendments.”
“to allow us the flexibility that others in the House have talked about. However, we are all on the same page. We need to protect people here in Northern Ireland. We have done it already today. It has been one of those days in the House when we have actually had some really good legislation. We have had the organ donation Bill. Dáithí was out there yelling and screaming; it was lovely to hear in this place. We have had some really good things, such as the school starting age Bill and welfare reform extensions. We can bring this forward. I think that we will be able to do what the Minister would like us to do, which is wipe out the awful bedroom tax. However, we need to be able to review.”
“— will actually allow the review that we need, which will allow the House to sit down and consider what we need — what we might need to improve, what is actually helping people, and maybe what needs to be set aside — so that we can move away from just the bedroom tax and benefit cap and start to talk about things that are helping people in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />In Northern Ireland, we spend an awful lot of money trying to put right some of the worst impacts of welfare reform. I think that we are all on the same page here: there is no fight today. Perhaps the Member can just outline whether we are absolutely sure that we have that. We can, of course, come back at Further Consideration Stage with the Minister and look at whether we need to tighten up something under clause 3:”
“That is why I proposed the amendments that provide an alternative to a cliff edge, but also give the opportunity to amend future mitigations based on a review and published report. Given the number of amendments that have been presented today that all seek to move away from a cut-off date, the House will decide. I have looked at the Sinn Féin amendment. We have ones where we are almost exactly there. I did not put forward an amendment to take out the end date, because I thought that it would not be within competence and would not be allowed. However, we are seeking the same thing. <BR /> <BR />Perhaps, in her summation, the proposer of amendment No 1 will just clarify for me 100% that her other amendments, Nos 5 and 7 — is that right?”
“The review is not necessarily to cut it off, but could bring forward improvements and new mitigation options to allow recommendations from the independent welfare mitigation review advisory panel to be brought forward. Of course, it could remove mitigations, should DWP update its policies and bring forward solutions to poverty and actually pay for the mitigations that we are currently taking out of our core budgets here in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />I have provided the House with an option to enable updates to our mitigations package rather than having a cliff-edge cut-off. Alliance is committed to alleviating and removing poverty in Northern Ireland, but we are also pragmatic, and we understand that the Bill has significant financial implications.”
“During Second Stage, I raised the Alliance Party's concern about a cut-off date for welfare reform mitigations. During that debate, I said that I would propose an amendment, and amendment No 2 has been presented to deal with that. It is in three parts that are listed as Nos 2, 6 and 8. The key amendment for me is my amendment No 2. I have proposed that, instead of a cut-off date, the legislation requires that there be a review of welfare mitigations and a report published by 31 March 2025. That will provide the Department with an opportunity to review welfare mitigations and provide a report in advance of the next, hopefully, three-year Budget. The date of 2025 is key, because it is the end of this three-year Budget, so it would bring that forward.”
“Today, we have variations of the same theme with the amendments that have been proposed. I think that we can all say that there has been a move away from a cut-off date to the welfare reform mitigations in Northern Ireland. Those mitigations have protected people in Northern Ireland from some of the worst impacts of welfare reform. We see, across the rest of the United Kingdom, that people in other areas wish that they had the same mitigation powers that we have and the same mitigations in place.”
“This will enable provision of support to more people, as was intended in the New Decade, New Approach agreement. However, Minister, as has been highlighted by Mr Mark Durkan, I am disappointed that we could not backdate some of those benefits for those families and people who were left out before. I am grateful that they will now be included, but with the Bill that will be debated later today, what will the impact be if that end date is changed? Perhaps the Minister can clarify that for us.”
“This regulation will remove that restriction on entitlement and mean that those people who previously lost their welfare supplementary payment will requalify if they satisfy the eligibility criteria, as the Chairperson of the Committee pointed out. It also closes the loopholes created by the benefit cap. We know that, in August 2021, that cap meant that 640 local families were not eligible for a welfare supplementary payment. This regulation will remove those restrictions and provide that all families with children will receive a welfare supplementary payment equivalent to the amount by which their benefit has been capped. <BR /> <BR />As has been said before, these are positive changes. They are very much needed. I thank the Cliff Edge Coalition and all those in the sector who have pushed very hard for these loopholes to be closed.”
“Thank you to the Minister and the other Members who have already spoken on this. On behalf of Alliance, I am standing, of course, to support this. The Welfare Supplementary Payment (Amendment) Regulations is the first of two pieces of legislation on welfare reform that I hope the House will pass. <BR /> <BR />This statutory rule will amend the Welfare Supplementary Payment Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016 and the Housing Benefit (Welfare Supplementary Payment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2017. The purpose is, of course, to amend the loopholes that created exceptions to the social sector size criteria, also known as the bedroom tax, for people who moved property and continued to under-occupy the same number of bedrooms. The figures provided for us confirmed that, at 31 March 2020, 306 people had had their entitlement ended.”
“Mr Speaker, I start by apologising to the House and the Minister for not being in my place for question 1. <BR /> <BR />Minister, you talked about trade deals. I am concerned that some of those trade deals could be harmful to our agri-food sector and that some are with countries that have extremely difficult human rights issues. What consideration has been given to ensuring that the human rights in those countries are improved upon?”
“Like the Chair of the Health Committee, I ask the Minister to clarify what will happen to the restrictions, and their further easing, if a First Minister is not renominated by this Thursday. Can he clarify how they will move forward?”
“Regulations are clearly in place to reduce the spread in other public spaces, yet that is not evident to many schoolteachers. There is a very practical impact. Many teachers get the virus and have to self-isolate, leaving schools short-staffed and constantly playing catch-up. Exam year students are not having the continuity of teaching that they need to prepare them to sit written exams, most for the first time ever. It remains unclear what the strategy in schools is concerning the virus, taking account of the understanding that it is airborne and particularly that omicron is so infectious. <BR /> <BR />This debate concerns the regulations, and we still have time to consider and plan for what lies ahead, even though we are now in far from ideal circumstances. I trust that planning is ongoing across Health and Education.”
“<BR /> <BR />As we all know, we were due to take further steps on 10 February, but some have opted to make that difficult and leave those decisions on the shoulders of the Minister of Health. Suffice to say that health is Alliance's priority, even if it is not the priority of others. <BR /> <BR />For clarity, these regulations apply predominantly to hospitality venues, with some technical changes applying to areas such as the vehicle used for driving instruction. None of them applies to schools. What is going on in schools is, first, instructive. Secondly, it is highly frustrating for those working in schools that the provision and use of filtration or ventilation systems seem to be sporadic, and many teachers are left baffled as to what the strategy is.”
“<BR /> <BR />The changes to the face coverings regulations are the ones that my colleague Paula Bradshaw spoke about during a previous debate. Alliance was never totally convinced that the Christmas changes in that area would be practicably implementable — that is hard to say. The announcement of changes caused genuine stress to many, and they will welcome this absolute confirmation that they will not be pursued. These regulations constitute a very sensible way out of restrictions. They allow for significant and greater freedoms to be restored while leaving measures in place that will restrict spread and act as a clear and present reminder to the public that there is a declining but still very present risk from the virus to public health.”
“On behalf of the Alliance Party, I will support the regulations today. The last time these regulations were debated, we were all aware that the changes that we are now seeing and that are being debated would be coming, so I do not intend to repeat many of the points that were made previously by my colleague Paula Bradshaw MLA. <BR /> <BR />It is worth following the logic. We have moved to allow some venues that were closed to open, subject to presentation of a relevant COVID pass, and we have allowed venues that were already open, by and large, to operate free from COVID passes and the rule of six. It may be noted that COVID passes remain a recommendation. Venues may feel that they may benefit from using them as a risk-reducing mitigation, but it is now left to them to use their judgement.”
“I thank the Minister: he has taken the wind out of my sails, because I was just going to ask him about the restoration document. This is absolutely welcome news for all the carers who are exhausted and have been waiting for day care and respite care to come back. That is all that I will say. Thank you very much.”
“Thank you very much, Minister. Construction, as you know, is vital if we are to achieve the aims of the housing strategy and end homelessness across Northern Ireland. Is there any joint departmental working being done with you to support our construction industry, especially given that there is a real lack of people coming into the industry at the moment and, as you say, given how much we work we need the Housing Executive to do?”
“Thank you, Minister. As you said, the Budget time frame is extremely challenging. Over recent weeks, we have heard that there may be an attempt to collapse the Assembly. If that happens, what protections can you put in place for all of the community and voluntary sector organisations that will be left without budgets?”
“<BR /> <BR />I thank the Minister, however, because a number of people have, thankfully, been able to have their mitigations continued under the Budget agreement for the past year, and they will be satisfied that they will take those mitigations forward until 2025. I therefore support the regulations, but, as a House, we need to consider the impact that we will create for those people in 2025.”
“As the Committee discussed, we have no choice other than to take the regulations forward, because, if we do not, we will let people down sooner than 2025. I am concerned, as the Chair said, about that future cut-off date; we should review that. I will certainly support the regulations now, but we need to consider what we are taking forward for people under the Welfare Supplementary Payments (Amendment) Bill, given that we have invested in the independent panel that is looking at welfare mitigations. Are we saying to the panel, "What is the point in your work, because, on 31 March 2025, this will all come to an end anyway?"?”