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 24 of 53.
“I thank the Minister for tabling the motion today. I will not repeat what has been said before, but the legislation is an extension to the welfare mitigation schemes that are in place to ensure that people do not face a cut-off, having had a year in which, under slightly different regulations, we have been able to cover their costs. It extends those welfare mitigation schemes to 31 March 2025. As the Minister said, they include people affected by the benefit cap, people moving from disability living allowance (DLA) to personal independence payment (PIP) and those affected by the loss of disability-related premiums and carer payments. <BR /> <BR />The mitigation schemes for those people will, however, still come to an end on 31 March 2025.”
“Minister, what action have you taken to implement the Gillen review recommendation for a school sexual offences awareness campaign?”
“I would like people to get a bit more help with funeral costs, because the benefits do not pay enough towards funeral costs. We have just debated the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill, and now we have the Social Security (Terminal Illness) Bill. Today is a sad day, given what we are dealing with, but it is also a good day because people are being helped. Thank you very much to the Minister and her team for bringing this forward.”
“It will not just help the people who are facing a terminal illness or a life-limiting condition, but, as the Chair mentioned, it will take a bit of pressure off our health staff and ensure that, when they are trying to treat someone and keep them as well as possible for as long as possible at the end of their days, they do not have to whip out a pad and fill out a form that basically tells a person when they are going to die. That just makes sense to me. I respect our health staff too much to put them under that type of pressure. I believe that this legislation is not only welcome but needed to end a cruelty that we do not need to have in Northern Ireland. I am therefore delighted that we have moved forward with it. <BR /> <BR />I have one more thing to say.”
“We have just finished the Further Consideration Stage of the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill, during which we added miscarriage to parental leave arrangements through the Department for the Economy, and we now have the Final Stage of this Bill. I am flabbergasted today because it feels as though the House is delivering so much help and support for people out there. There is legislation that comes along and you just say, "This makes sense. Why have we not done it before?", and this is one of those pieces of legislation. <BR /> <BR />Today, the wish of Marie Curie, the Motor Neurone Disease Association and many others has come true, and I thank the Minister for removing the cruel six-month rule. That is good and positive.”
“Once this Bill goes through, Minister, you will certainly have helped an enormous number of people who I have spent time with, in my life, maybe having a bit of a wet shoulder, as they cope with a very severe loss. This is compassion in legislation. Thank you.”
“It starts to allow parents who have miscarried to actually have time to grieve. That will have a massive impact, not just on the person but on our workforce, for them to be able to get their head straight and be allowed to grieve, and for people to recognise that grief. <BR /> <BR />I know, from when I was a bereavement counsellor for miscarriage, that one of the things that harmed people the most — mothers and fathers — was that their loss was not recognised. It was hidden away. Minister, this goes a long way to progressing the grieving process. I appreciate that it is about day-1 rights and labour and workforce things, but, to be honest, it is a huge step forward, and I really thank you for that. It is not very often in the House that we sit down and think, "My goodness. We have done something very good".”
“<BR /> <BR />In the past, harm has been caused to parents who have miscarried. They have been left out and left behind, and, because they do not get a death certificate when it happens before 24 weeks, they are excluded from many considerations. I give a huge thanks for the inclusion of those parents in this legislation. This is more than just legislation coming from the Department for the Economy. It will go a long way to allowing those parents to know that their child is recognised and their grief is understood. One in four pregnancies ends in miscarriage. That is many, many people in Northern Ireland going through that — mothers, fathers and partners — as is mentioned in the Bill. The Bill helps to look at the taboo of miscarriage and moves it slightly out of the shadows.”
“I thank the Minister for that. I ask him just to confirm, so that we have it on the record for all those parents, that they will not be treated as those who are hidden behind the door — the ones behind hospital curtains who are hidden away from everyone else. One thing that the Bill brings forward is that, for the first time in Northern Ireland, parents who have suffered a bereavement through miscarriage will be considered on an equal footing to those who have lost a child through stillbirth or whose child has passed away after birth, maybe much after birth. Absolutely no one wants to qualify for this leave and pay. If you qualify for this leave and pay, my heart goes out to you, because you have suffered one of the worst things that you will ever go through in your life.”
“I just want to say a huge thank-you to all in the House, because you have, at long last, recognised that those of us who have lost children in early pregnancy do count, we do grieve and we do need time. I would love to give the Minister, in his summing up, the opportunity to confirm to all those people that, when he is developing the regulations that are referenced in amendment Nos 1 and 17, and could well be referenced elsewhere, with respect to miscarriage, they will be developed with medical professionals, miscarriage support organisations, such as the Miscarriage Association, and bereaved parents, and will be brought to the House for final agreement.”
“I start by thanking the Minister and his officials. I stood in the Chamber when the then Minister for the Economy, Minister Frew, said that, no, miscarriage could not be included. As others have said, it has been shown that, through Committee work and working together, this place has turned that around and included it. <BR /> <BR />As many of you know, I, unfortunately, belong to that club of people who have been through miscarriage — unfortunately, multiple miscarriages. The whole way through my adult life, I have continued to work to protect those parents who have been through such a bereavement. The loss of a child in pregnancy before 24 weeks is often hidden; it is often ignored.”
“Thank you, deputy First Minister. I agree, but it has gone beyond Health and is now a cross-departmental issue. Do you agree that having a register of carers is now a necessity so that we can know exactly who our carers are and how support can be provided for them?”
“I will not give way. Sorry. <BR /> <BR />I will get back to group 4. It is hard to believe that we are still here. I have spoken with the SDLP about the group 4 amendments and am content that, as Mr McNulty said, it will take parts through to Further Consideration Stage. I will continue to work with all of you on this. My door is open, and Fiona and I will probably send you guys lots of emails and ask for meetings following this debate. We still have work to do. This is not Final Stage. We are about creating good and right legislation. The integrated education movement has watched how encouragement and facilitation has happened over the past number of years. That is why I will go for what is in the Bill, which is:”
“A spare place in Drumragh in Omagh is not much help to my constituents in Strangford. All sectors have spare places. We have heard about small schools. I have said on record in the House that the only primary school that should absolutely be allowed to have under the numbers is on Rathlin, because of its geographical area. In Scotland, Highlands and Islands legislation deals with that and talks about why a small school would be there. <BR /> <BR />I will come back to —”
“For instance, one of the schools of which I am on the board is oversubscribed by 150 pupils, and there is a temporary variation of 20 places. What happens to the other 130 pupils? They cannot go to any other integrated school because all the other integrated schools that are close by are full. The parents have no choice. Their preference is not taken into account. The cost per child of the 130 pupils who do not go to that integrated school is lost to another sector. That is what happens at the moment. A modal shift is happening. In poll after poll, 71% of parents say that they would prefer integrated education or for children to be educated together. The view of that 71% is not being addressed. <BR /> <BR />Of course, some will turn round and say that integrated schools have spare places.”
“I thank the Member very much for his contribution. I am glad that he has understood what I have said, because I absolutely mean "must". I have not changed it. It is the Minister who is asking for "must" to be taken out and replaced with "may". I am happy to keep "must" in. I have said that I will not support that amendment. <BR /> <BR />I have heard from so many people that, somehow, enabling parental preference for integrated education will harm funding for other schools. 'A Fair Start' was mentioned today. Really? If we in the House respect parental preference, it is not about taking away from one because of the other; it is about allowing parental preference to take place where that option exists.”
“Not just at the moment, thank you. <BR /> <BR />If any Member wishes me to make that more concrete by changing clause 10(2), I would not be happy to do that, but, if others tell me that the way forward is to have "the regulations must, in particular, include", we will then have to define absolutely who the stakeholders, public bodies and all those organisations are. At this stage, however, I have left that open.”
“gives the Department the opportunity to choose. If the House decides to take out those things, to be honest, I say that the Department can put whatever it wants into regulations at a future stage. The Bill will not stop it doing so.”
“I did not say that that was the only training that I took. Mr Speaker, sorry, now it is Mr Deputy Speaker — that changed quickly — as someone who had a relative with autism, I take a slight from that comment. <BR /> <BR />Look, here we are. Amendment No 46 is in front of us, through which the Minister wants to take out "must" and replace it with "may". I am not minded to do so, because I want regulations supplementing the Bill's provisions to be made. I am happy to sit down with the Department following Consideration Stage. If a reasonable amendment can be made, I or the Department can table it. My ears have been open, and I have reacted to everything that has been said. At clause 10(2):”
“Absolutely. Throughout the passage of the Bill, I have declared an interest as a governor of two schools. I have attended Education Authority and other training. I have attended so many kinds of training to make sure that I provide good governance in the schools that I work with. That is part of:”
“<BR /> <BR />With regard to "mandatory", in integrated education, governors, classroom assistants and non-teaching staff all go through integrated education and understanding of what an integrated school is, what integration is and so on. I have not dealt with the content of the course. I just say that we need to have a standardisation so that we can say to all teachers that there is a standardised approach. For those schools who wish to put their board of governors through that — I do not force it — here is a standardised approach. That will probably be developed by St Mary's and Stranmillis, I guess.”
“Throughout that subsection, there are suggestions for that. <BR /> <BR />It talks about the "mandatory and standard" piece that the SDLP had considerations about. Throughout this Bill, when we were doing some research, we met St Mary's and Stranmillis teacher training colleges. We looked at the postgraduate certificate in education (PGCE) at the University of Ulster — my goodness, there were so many people — to see what the content was of their diversity and inclusion training, which they all provide, they were very different in type. You might have one place that does a number of hours and another that does a module. It was very different.”
“Thank you very much for that. To be honest, the choice between the words "must" and "may" is a policy intent. It is not legal. It does have legal implications, but the decision to change it from "must" to "may" is a policy intent, as opposed to anything else. As I explained earlier:”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. The key word that he used is "interpret". I have it very clearly that it is "must make regulations". There is no ambiguity in that. The Minister has asked for an amendment to change it to "may".”
“The list is there. Taking them in or out, to be quite frank, is not really going to change the powers that we have already given to the Department.”
“That is a huge risk, because the Department can decide to put whatever it wants into those regulations. However, the Department is full of professionals who know what they need to do to deliver on a report and bring it forward. As I say, the Committee has decided that it wants it in the affirmative, so it will have to come before the House. That was not my doing. However, as I said earlier, who am I to argue against the Examiner of Statutory Rules? <BR /> <BR />There are generalities used in the clauses. I do not apologise for them, because I expect the Department to make the final decisions on that. That is the right place for that to happen. It has the professionals who work with all the sectors, and it can define that later. I have suggested:”
“I am not prepared to go as far as "may" because that takes the feet off the fire. However, there may be another word that we can find that means that the regulations can be taken forward. I did not ever intend to change clause 10(2), where it says that:”
“I listened last Friday. My ears have been open, as anybody on the Committee can tell you. I will be happy, between now and Further Consideration Stage, to sit down with the Department and look at the terminology used in clause 10:”
“I thank the Member for his contribution. Just to follow up on that, it has been mentioned so many times that I have not included references to other sectors in the Bill. I cannot do that, because this is the Integrated Education Bill, and it would be outside the scope of the Bill to make presumptions against any other sectors. Although this is the third day of Consideration Stage, Members have the option to bring forward their own legislation or private Member's Bills if they so wish. In fact, if the Minister so wishes, when she makes the regulations that supplement the Bill's provisions when it becomes an Act, she could do something along those lines for other sectors. I am not stopping that from happening; I just cannot include it in the Integrated Education Bill. <BR /> <BR />I understand the Department's concerns.”
“I read through Mr McCrossan's amendments, and I know that they were probing amendments to leave out the references to coordination and collaboration. Nevertheless, I believe that efforts to coordinate and collaborate are very welcome. The House has already agreed to a future single education system that will have to involve collaboration and coordination. That is already happening across most sectors, and we all know that it needs to happen if a successful single education system is to progress.”
“The amendments that may or may not be moved by Mr McCrossan or anyone else — amendment Nos 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 and 55 — are all in the "mays" and are within the gift of the Department of Education to decide whether or not to take forward. It can clarify or change that. I have tried my very best to make the Bill not so restrictive as to make it impossible for the Department. When it comes to all of those lines in 10(2) that include all of the amendments that the SDLP and others are concerned about, I have to say that unless you make that a "must" as well, those are in the gift of the Department to decide on. <BR /> <BR />I am saying to everyone here that we still have the Further Consideration Stage.”
“I had it in the Bill that it should be by way of negative resolution — but the Committee has brought it forward in a different way as a result of the recommendations of the Examiner of Statutory Rules, so I cannot stand against that. I have always said that when a legal person tells me what to do, I believe them because they are the professionals. <BR /> <BR />I am content to support the Committee on amendment No 47. It makes the clause explicit, and I am happy to support that.”
“It sets out how the data would be captured and the formulation and measurement of targets. It is very important, however, to point out that clause 10(2), which nobody has amended, says "may". It was drafted in that way in order to give the Department the ownership of what those regulations would include. <BR /> <BR />I can understand the Minister saying that, if the Committee's amendment goes forward, that may create an anomaly. However, throughout the Bill's progress, it has been said how important legal advice is. As an MLA, I cannot stand here and go against advice that has been provided to the Committee by the Examiner of Statutory Rules and that is in the report. The Examiner of Statutory Rules looked at the Bill and decided that it needed to be laid before the Assembly.”
“I have to say that I cannot support the Minister's amendment No 46, in which she asks to change the word "must" to "may". My policy intent to require the Department to make regulations is because, throughout my work on the Bill, I felt that we needed to hold the Department's feet to the fire. We wanted the Department to make regulations so that, when it was going through the detail, it could spell out exactly what it needed. Clause 10(2) says that:”
“I appreciate that the Bill has taken you and your staff a long time, with all the voting and everything else that has happened. Thank you very much for enabling that. <BR /> <BR />I will move on now to the group 4 amendments on regulations. I thank everyone for tabling amendments. When I met the Department last Friday to discuss its amendments, it brought to my attention the fact that there may be an anomaly in the Bill that will need to be sorted out at Further Consideration Stage.”
“I know that Caroline Perry has been sitting at the Table as long as we have during this. Thank you so much, Bill Office. I have gone through the full Assembly process for the Bill, and we are not out of the woods yet. We still have Further Consideration Stage — Caroline will be looking at me — and Final Stage to go, but the work has been very much appreciated. <BR /> <BR />She will be very cross with me for using her name, but others have mentioned Fiona McAteer, my policy and research officer, who has lived the Bill with me. Babies have been born, houses have been moved, we have had funerals: we have had everything throughout our time with this Bill. It has been the longest almost-six years of our lives. <BR /> <BR />I put on record those thanks and also my thanks, Mr Speaker, to you and your team.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was not expecting to be called this quickly. I think that we have all found that the Bill has taken a very long time. Before I go into the details, I thank all Members. The Bill must be a record-breaker for time spent on Consideration Stage, not only for a private Member's Bill (PMB) but for any Bill. I thank in particular the Minister and her Department for their engagement. As I said at the start of the process, my ears were open, and I wanted to work to make sure that the legislation was good. <BR /> <BR />I also thank the Committee, and I say to it: you put me through the wringer. We had open and frank discussions, and, as I said I would, I tabled the amendments that you wished me to, making sure, of course, that they were in scope. At this point, I thank our Bill Office.”
“To clarify that point — I will talk about it later to reaffirm it — you can standardise training. It is not about standardising diversity.”
“and it gives a list. It is for the Department to decide exactly what will be included in those regulations, and I understand there will be a discussion. Later, I can go into that when I am speaking. However, it can be any public body from Translink to a school meals provider, an outdoor sports centre or anything like that.”
“I was going to bring that up later on. If you note, clause 10(2) says:”
“I am very proud of the work that we have done over the years to bring in mitigations, and we need to keep those mitigations in place until DWP understands the situation in Northern Ireland.”
“We have huge problems. While all that is going on, we are saying to people that the bedroom tax, in its current form, will come to an end on 31 March 2025. The people who are subjected to the bedroom tax cannot move to mitigate that change. <BR /> <BR />I say to everyone that we need to work together. I absolutely support the Minister's pushing forward. In fact, I ask the whole Executive to help her to get DWP to understand that the situation is different in Northern Ireland: we have larger families, and we have a housing problem. DWP needs to step up and recognise that welfare reform is not right for this devolved nation. We voted for welfare reform to come in so that we could put in mitigations.”
“Review may stop it or it may allow it to continue, and it will also give the option for the social security mitigations panel's recommendations to be brought forward. <BR /> <BR />I will reiterate what Mr Allen said: people who are subjected to the bedroom tax cannot move to mitigate that tax. I appreciate that the Minister is bringing forward her housing strategy. The Minister is up against it, however, because councils are taking up to two years to pass planning applications for new homes. The system seems to be working against us. Due to the problems with Northern Ireland Water's funding, many developments cannot take place. There are areas in my constituency where all planning, housing and development have been stopped over the past number of years because what is under the ground cannot cope with any further housing development.”
“I therefore submitted a question for written answer and await an answer to find out how much it will cost to provide that back payment. <BR /> <BR />I am disappointed that it has taken so long for this Bill to come to the Chamber. The Communities Committee has listened. As the Chair mentioned, it asked for this legislation to come forward many times and is delighted that it has. The Executive, however, bartered with people who are living on benefits. That is despicable. I point out to Members across the House, from all parties, that we all have constituents whom we are responsible for representing. This is not the way to do good government. The 2025 cut-off date is an issue for me. If that goes through in this legislation, I will seek to amend it, because I think that we need to review that date.”
“I say that because I do not understand how that end date ties in with the social security mitigations panel, which you have asked to consider whether the mitigations are right or wrong and whether we should have different mitigations. Having the bedroom tax continue until 2025 takes that, in effect, out of the panel's considerations. It will be in place until 2025, and, if the panel were to come up with an idea to change it, it could not do that. The panel might want to review it, but it is there until 2025, and I am just not sure how that works. <BR /> <BR />Going back to the point that I made earlier about the people — the 199 households — who fell outside the social sector size criteria, I appreciate that there will be a cost to that payment.”
“We all will have spoken to constituents who have been impacted by the social sector size criteria: people who joined universal credit (UC) or had a housing change or a change of circumstance after 31 March 2020 and who therefore fell outside the mitigations that we brought in. <BR /> <BR />The other thing that I want to check with you, Minister, is that, as others mentioned, clause 1(2) brings in a new date of 31 March 2025 as the fixed end date for the mitigations. I would have preferred a review, which I may well consider putting forward at Consideration Stage — I will be open with you about that, Minister.”
“I have asked a few questions in writing, so your officials may well have some of the details. I ask for clarification on clause 2(3). Does the amendment mean that, from 1 April 2020, any people who were new to universal credit or universal credit claimants with a change of housing circumstance affected by social sector size criteria cannot receive a payment to cover what has already been deducted as a result of their social sector size because they have an extra bedroom? When the clause states that there will be "no payments", does it mean that people who have not received any payments because they were outside the then criteria will not receive a back payment to cover the deductions that were taken because they fell through that loophole?”
“I did not speak on the accelerated passage motion because, to be honest, there was no argument with it. The Minister outlined succinctly that, if it were not for accelerated passage, we would be leaving people in poverty without mitigations. I will not get into the party politicking that Mr Durkan mentioned. I will just say that, as there is no Committee Stage because of accelerated passage, the debate gives me the opportunity, Minister, to ask you some clarification questions, if you do not mind. My focus in all this is on the citizens out there — the people whom UC:Us and the Cliff Edge Coalition represent — and on how we will help them. In New Decade, New Approach, all parties agreed that mitigations should continue. That is the right way to go. <BR /> <BR />Minister, I will take you to the clauses.”
“I am glad to see the publication of the principles, and I welcome an open and transparent approach to the Public Services Ombudsman's complaint-handling procedures.”
“<BR /> <BR />When dealing with any sort of complaint, it is vital that respect be shown by both parties involved and that matters are dealt with in a prompt, professional and measured way. The statement of principles will help to ensure that complaints that are lodged with the Public Services Ombudsman are dealt with consistently, regardless of who makes the complaint. <BR /> <BR />I cannot help but think of the difficulties that certain groups in our society face in such instances. That includes older people or those who are very unwell and may require extra time to process information, or those with a learning disability. It is vital that all our public services are inclusive and accessible to all.”