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 25 of 53.
“I welcome the Public Services Ombudsman's statement of principles concerning complaints-handling procedures, with the hope that those who lodge a complaint with the Public Services Ombudsman go through a process that is well structured, focused and honest. However, I note that that course of action is completely avoidable and that the first point of contact to complain about a public body should be with the public body itself. It is disappointing that so many of those complaints have to be taken to the ombudsman as a result of poor action by some of our public bodies. <BR /> <BR />From a quick glance at the Public Services Ombudsman's case studies, it is clear that members of the public in some very challenging circumstances, particularly regarding children with special educational needs, have been failed by our public services.”
“Amendment No 41 also takes out targets and benchmarks for measuring the success of integrated education. <BR /> <BR />I am not happy to take any amendments to clause 9 other than Mr McCrossan's amendment No 42, because that one adds in the commission. I will not support the Minister's new clause 9, because it detracts too much from the original clause 9, simplifying it to the extent that it takes out the policy intent.”
“Indeed, if the House does not vote for amendment No 70, I commit that I may well update amendment No 27 to limit the education bodies to those that the Minister was trying to limit them to, which was very much appreciated. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 40 and 41 were tabled by Mr McCrossan. I have always been fair, and we have had discussions about this. I will not support amendment Nos 40 and 41. The reason why I will not support them — I will flick over to find the amendments — is that they were also originally drafted with the assumption that "education bodies" would include that whole gamut. Amendment No 70 deals with that. Rather than removing a section, I would prefer that that stay in, with amendment No 70 taking care of what the education bodies are.”
“It is extraordinarily difficult to get things to fit into scope when we are talking about including aspects of sectors outside the integrated education sector. <BR /> <BR />I am checking to see whether I need to raise anything else about that. To be honest, I think that I have covered everything on that, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I will say a few things. I will oppose the Minister's amendment No 23. I ask people to vote for my amendment No 27, particularly now that — I cannot presume to know how the House will vote — the Minister's amendment No 70, which defines "education bodies", helps people to understand the limitations of amendment No 27.”
“The Bill Office decided which clauses were mutually exclusive. I am just saying that it is quite awkward. For instance, we have already voted to say that the word "support" will be included, but clause 5A goes back to the status quo; it goes back to the current position. We have already changed that, because we have voted in clause 5. <BR /> <BR />I do not know whether we can add a full new clause at Further Consideration Stage, but we can certainly add to the clause 5 that is already in the Bill, because we have already voted for it. Those are my issues with that. That is about as clear as I can be without having something in writing from the Bill Office. I appreciate what has come forward tonight, because we cannot presume what the Speaker will or will not accept.”
“As Mr McCrossan put forward, I suggest that, as the Bill's sponsor, I would be happy, between Consideration Stage today and Further Consideration Stage, to sit down with the Department to look at clause 5, which has been voted into the Bill at Consideration Stage, and at new clause 5A so that I can raise my concerns about clause 5A and see whether we can add to clause 5 parts of clause 5A that the Minister and the Department would like to see. In order to do that, however, the process requires that new clause 5A not be moved, so that we do not knock it out of the process. If we put it in, we can only finesse and add; we cannot take anything out. I believe that that is the case.”
“That is not tight enough for me. <BR /> <BR />Subsection (1) has been drafted well — I do not criticise any of the professionals who do drafting — but it has been drafted on the assumption that clause 5, which we have voted to include in the Bill, would not be there and that new clause 5A would replace clause 5. Looking at clause 5, which we have voted to include in the Bill, and new clause 5A, I see an overlap that causes a bit of concern. <BR /> <BR />Given the fact that, as I understand it, you cannot delete something at Further Consideration Stage that has been voted in by the House. You can amend and finesse, but you cannot take information out.”
“Thank you very much for the interventions. I had not finished explaining all my problems with new clause 5A. <BR /> <BR />Subsection (5) states:”
“I do not know who asked first. Was it Mr Allister? No? Sorry.”
“It does not say what those factors are. I imagine that it probably refers to budget, which, of course, would be expected, but anything else can be brought into that. For me, unfortunately, it is too wide-ranging to go forward.”
“here is another one that I have a problem with —”
“When is that? It is not defined. That is not clear for me. It goes on to say in subsection (6):”
“However, you mentioned that final piece — that you cannot take away from what has already been voted through. <BR /> <BR />Mr Butler asked me about clarification on proposed new clause 5A and my concerns on it. It is in amendment No 23.I draw Members' attention to subsection (4), which is part of my problem:”
“I was told that, prior to 2016 and the provision of that permission, it was not allowed to promote integrated education using funding received from the Department. I am sure that NICIE can provide a copy of that communication from the Department. It exists in an email format from an officer who worked in the Department at that stage. NICIE certainly receives funding. It is a small body of people, and I have a lot of time for the work that it does. It does a lot for integrated and shared education. I will defer to that evidence from NICIE. I am sure that Members can contact it for it. <BR /> <BR />The information that was highlighted during Mr McCrossan's contribution is welcome. It was interesting when you said, Deputy Speaker, that the Speaker would not comment on any amendments that have not yet been made.”
“Those are existing in the area where the new school has been identified. If there are other schools there, their teachers will be asked. It is a bit similar to what happens when a transformation comes forward. You engage everyone who has a vested interest in that area. That was the intention of that clause. How can you have a teacher in a new school if a new school has not yet been set up? <BR /> <BR />I will move on to Mr Harvey's contribution. I want to highlight to him that amendment No 70 identifies the education bodies, because that was a concern of his. The other thing that he asked about was what NICIE does, given that it is funded. I do not have a copy of this evidence, but I am sure that it can be provided to others. In 2016, NICIE was provided with permission to promote integrated education.”
“I pay tribute to the Bill Office, which tried and tried to build in what the Committee had said to me clearly, which was that there needed to be a community consultation and work done so that, when a new school, identified by the Education Authority or the Department, was being brought forward, there would be a wider, nuanced discussion across the whole area. I welcome that. It means that, as I have defined in my new clause 7, you need to talk to teachers and others in a much wider context. "Community bodies" is the wording needed to have that part of society included. It was difficult, so I thank the Bill Office for its support with the amendment. It was extraordinarily difficult to ensure that we could meet the Committee's needs in scope.”
“Thank you very much for that, Mr Sheehan. Mr Sheehan also rightly pointed out that children in integrated schools will be able to use the Bill to hold the school's feet to the fire, if it is not as inclusive and diverse as it should be. <BR /> <BR />My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am getting quite tired now. <BR /> <BR />As Mr Sheehan said, no one knows when the independent review of education will come forward, when its report will come out or when its recommendations will be enacted. He was absolutely right about clause 7: I recognised immediately and took it on board quickly that nobody liked the initial clause 7.”
“<BR /> <BR />I have talked already about amendment No 70, which will define "education bodies". To be clear, when we were bringing forward the Bill, it was not in my gift to change the definition of "education bodies", because it is defined in law. We have sectoral bodies and education bodies, and the gamut of those education bodies was included in the Bill as introduced. To be honest, I am delighted that the Minister is seeking to change that definition for this Bill, because she has saved me the hassle — so much hassle — of trying to do that. <BR /> <BR />Pat Sheehan discussed how the strategy is key, and I agree with him. He talked about how some degree of advantage is necessary, as there has not been any explanation of how children who cannot access an integrated education will get a place. I agree with him on that.”
“They talk about reporting how the Department has discharged its duties, but that could be as simple as one line, without detailing the objectives, the aims and the achievements delivered. <BR /> <BR />I do not support the Minister's intention to oppose clause 9's standing part of the Bill and replace it with amendment No 45. The reason that I included biennial reporting in clause 9 is because it will give all Members of the Assembly the ability to review how legislation passed by the House is being delivered. <BR /> <BR />I now turn to Members' contributions this evening, which are much appreciated. To confirm, in discussing the group 3 amendments, the Minister said that there is provision for integrated education whereby parents can establish a new school. That provision is not taken away by the Bill.”
“I will certainly come to that. I will continue with what I am talking about, and then, when I come to reflect, I will make some comments on proposed new clause 5A, on which Mr Butler needs clarification. <BR /> <BR />As I was saying, there are four education sectors, and anyone who wishes to support their preferred sector will be satisfied by the Minister's change to the definition in the Bill of what an education body is. It means that those of you who prefer controlled or maintained schools can be reassured. <BR /> <BR />I cannot support the changes in the Minister's amendment Nos 30 to 35. They water down the Bill's proposed policy intent. Clause 8 as introduced contains the requirement for an integrated education strategy and for quite detailed actions to be taken. The Minister's proposals water down that approach.”
“Integrated education and Irish-medium schools do not currently have a planning authority. Amendment No 27 ensures that an education body — I have agreed that that will be defined by amendment No 70 — would have to include integrated education as part of new-school planning. <BR /> <BR />As I said, it is important to note that a vote is coming up later on amendment No 70, in which the Minister clarifies what is to be meant in the Bill by an education body. There are four education sectors, and anyone who wishes to support their preferred sector will be satisfied by the Minister's change to the definition in the Bill —.”
“Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are moving on a bit faster now. <BR /> <BR />I thank every Member who has spoken on this group. It has been useful to hear what has come forward in the amendments. I thank the Minister for tabling her amendment No 23, however I cannot support proposed new clause 5A. While I appreciate the Department's approach, new clause 5A would, unfortunately, water down the policy intent of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />My new clause 7, amendment No 27, has been proposed following discussion with the Committee. My policy intent is to open the conversation when a new-school opportunity is presented by the Department — sorry, the Education Authority. The amendment provides for consultation with a wider audience. It will ensure that a report is produced to clarify why a particular type of school is to be established.”
“I want to clarify that there are 65 integrated schools in Northern Ireland, 27 of which are also controlled schools. So, the integrated education sector is not the only sector that it would happen to; there are controlled schools that would come into the mix. Again, 27 out of the 65 are controlled schools. We should not forget the fact that CSSC and the Education Authority have responsibility for those controlled, integrated schools.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. When I met officials from the Department last Friday, we talked through all the amendments that the Minister proposed. Amendment No 70 will be dealt with at another stage, but that amendment refers to the definition of education bodies, which will be the Department of Education and the Education Authority. It may help the House to know that I said that I would support that amendment.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. If the children who are trying to get into a controlled or maintained school are being denied that opportunity, I will join with you. However, there is no evidence that a child who has tried to get into a maintained or controlled school cannot get into that type of school. They may not get into their first-preference school, but they will always be able to get into a maintained or controlled school, unlike children in Irish-medium or integrated education, who often do not have an alternative school of that type to go to.”
“We have just voted for clause 5 to stand part of the Bill, so that is it: clause 5 is there. New clause 5A is certainly not mutually exclusive. I would be happy for aspects of new clause 5A to be taken forward before Further Consideration Stage. As I said before, my ears are open. I have always been prepared to listen throughout this process. If anything can improve the Bill, as the Member has stated, I am certainly open to it.”
“Thank you very much, Minister. I appreciate that this is a matter that keeps coming back. I provided the Education Committee with a copy of the letter from Mr Speaker confirming that the consultation was OK and that I could move forward with the Bill. Members can beat me up all day, every day about the consultation process. The Education Committee had a substantial number of meetings over a substantial number of months through the process. Having read the Education Committee report that arose from that process, I do not see that many of these issues have been brought up in it.”
“Thank you, Minister; I appreciate your giving way. I am sorry, but I do not live by the fear of judicial reviews. I live by putting forward legislation that will help the integrated education movement. Let us move past this; we need to move on. We are into the group 2 amendments.”
“It will be up to Members as to whether they support that, but I cannot support the Minister's amendments because I believe that they water down the intention of the Bill.”
“I believe that we all want that. <BR /> <BR />I have explained what I mean by the word "support" with respect to clauses 4 and 5.”
“Not just at the moment. <BR /> <BR />It has been suggested that I am in some sort of conflict with the churches in what I am trying to do with the Bill. That is not the case, because I am not doing anything that harms or takes away religious education in schools; indeed, Archbishop Eamon Martin said at the interdenominational church service that there was a bit of concern about that:”
“<BR /> <BR />Mr Stalford then talked about what was happening in the Bill. I met the Education Committee. Three members of his party sit on that Committee. I brought to it the proposed change from "promote" to "support". The Committee had the opportunity to table any amendments that it wished, and it has done so. I thank the Committee for those amendments, because they add to the Bill. However, neither any of those DUP members nor the Committee tabled amendments on that issue. To be clear, Mr Justice Treacy said that integrated education was a stand-alone concept. If a school wants to be called "integrated", it must go through a process. The Bill will not change that process.”
“Calling two of them "main" sectors portrays exactly the approach that has been taken by some, which is that integrated education is somehow less than, in Mr Harvey's words, the "two main sectors". <BR /> <BR />Mr Weir said that more is given to the integrated education sector than to any other sector and that there has been a duty to encourage and facilitate integrated and Irish-medium education for years. If being assisted has created those huge education sectors, why are they not, in Mr Harvey's words, the "two main sectors"? Indeed, I draw Members' attention to clause 9(3)(d), which confirms that the biennial reporting will look for a decrease in demand for integrated education as much as it will look for an increase in the want for it. I have been realistic throughout the Bill.”
“I thank the Member for her contribution. Given the fact that the Education Authority (EA) and the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS) are planning authorities and integrated education and Irish-medium education do not have a planning authority, what the Bill does is look towards equity. We all know that that is separate to equality, whereby, if you need to help a sector or group of people to be equal, there needs to be an equitable basis on which to do that. That is where I am coming from. Mr Harvey compounded my fears on that during his contribution, when he talked about the two main sectors as being the controlled and maintained sectors. I thought that there were four education sectors and that they were all equal.”
“I will in a moment. I just want to clarify a point. During her contribution earlier, which was very welcome, Mrs Dodds said that the budget of the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education (NICIE) was over £600 million: it is £600,000. NICIE wishes that it was getting £600 million. I think that Education would wish that it had an additional £600 million. I give way to the Member.”
“Absolutely, but, in the meantime, I will protect integrated education as far as I can.”
“Before people come at me and say, "Well, then, why are you bringing this Bill forward?", we do not have a single education system today, and we are not going to have it tomorrow or next year. It is unlikely that we will see it in this three-year Budget period. In that time, I am not content to have integrated education —”
“In fact, the Minister's amendment No 70, which we will come to much later, confirms the education bodies in respect of the Bill. CSSC is a very well-respected sectoral body, but it is not an education body. I have not decided that; it is in law. <BR /> <BR />What else? Mrs Dodds talked about the Education budget. Can I be clear? From my point of view, the best way in which we can meet the pressures on the Education budget is to have a single education system. The cost of providing separate sectors is what causes much of the haemorrhaging of money in Education. It has been highlighted for years as being the best way to achieve better education and budget efficiency. That is why the independent review of education was agreed by all parties.”
“One of those sources of funding has, thankfully, been Fresh Start. <BR /> <BR />The Minister also commented about how the amendment groupings were decided. I have no control over that. That is outside of a Bill sponsor's capabilities. It has nothing to do with me; that is for the House. It is done by professionals in the Bill Office, so I cannot comment too much further about that. <BR /> <BR />I will not summarise everyone's pieces today; I will concentrate on where Members asked for clarification or gave clarification. Mr Newton, just for clarity, the Controlled Schools' Support Council (CSSC) is a wonderful body, but, as much as I am sure that it would love to be, it is not an education body; it is a sectoral body. Education bodies are set down in law.”
“<BR /> <BR />I have to say that what has shone a light for me throughout this process is the fact that others who support maintained, controlled or Irish-medium schools, but particularly maintained and controlled schools, may now have an insight into what it feels like to be involved with integrated education. As we all know, there have been repeated references in LucidTalk and other polling to parents wanting to have integrated education in Northern Ireland. I believe that 71% was the figure in the poll that was published in December in the 'News Letter' and the 'Guardian'. Although 71% of parents want it, only 10% of children in the whole school body are able to access integrated education. We are not the massive sector in education; we are the poor relative. We have had to look elsewhere for funding to support integrated education.”
“I do not think that it is any easier. In fact, parents who want to set up a new school — it is happening at the moment in the mid-Down area — have to do that, with, hopefully, help from the Integrated Education Fund. There is no help from the Department to set up a new school in order to meet demand. I have to admit that it has changed in recent years and there is a little bit more help, but, in the past, parents have had to remortgage houses to set up schools. A bit of help is coming forward for mid-Down, but an education body has said that there is no need for it, even though mid-Down would address the fact that Lagan College is unable to host up to 200 pupils who want to go to an integrated school but for whom there are no places.”
“The controlled and maintained sectors have, for years, benefited from the fact that integrated education has been kept very small. The Minister said that meeting parental preferences takes away from other schools. That is already happening. It highlights how that growing parental preference is not being met, as the Minister is, to be honest, seeking to protect other sectors. That is a hierarchy. That is why I proposed the Bill.”
“Reports, recommendations and many papers have asked for it to be more than "to encourage and facilitate". Sadly, the Minister's amendment does no more than maintain the status quo. The integrated education movement, parents and a wide sector of the community want more than that, and my clause 5 provides that. If everyone in this House respects parental preference, they have the opportunity to show that by supporting my clauses. <BR /> <BR />I will go back to what the Minister talked about earlier. I understand what she said about the fact that if you give to one sector, you take away from another. That is what it is like to be in integrated education, however. When a child or family cannot access integrated education because no places are available to them, where do they go? They go to another sector.”
“<BR /> <BR />I clarified the nature of that change from "promote" to "support" with the integrated education movement, which was content to change to the word "support". To be honest, that is something that the movement has held very dear for years, but it was happy to go with that change to meet the Committee's requirements. <BR /> <BR />The reason that I need clause 4 to be in the Bill, and why I will be asking others to support my clause 4, is that, while "to encourage and facilitate" has been a duty on the education system for many years, we have not seen enough movement towards integrated education in that time. I changed the word "promote" for the Committee. The wording "to encourage and facilitate" has only led to 10% of pupils being able to access integrated education.”
“The word "promote" is a feature of the independent review of integrated education and the integrated education movement and was supported by both my Bill consultation and by the Committee of Education's consultation. When I met the Education Committee during its Committee Stage, it was clear that it was not happy with the word "promote". I came up with the term "support". I brought that to the Committee, and the Committee had an opportunity to comment on it. I did not have to take my amendments to the Committee, but I did. I also asked the Committee whether it had any alternative and said that, if there was, I would certainly consider bringing it forward. When that did not appear, I tabled the amendment to change "promote" to "support". That happens in a number of amendments to the Bill, because that wording runs throughout the Bill.”
“I do not agree with Mr McCrossan's amendment, but I have discussed that fact with him in good faith and told him that I am happy to work with him to come up with a more considered amendment at Further Consideration Stage. Any Member can attest to the fact that, throughout this process, when have I said that I would meet them or listen to them or table amendments, I have done so. Later, we will discuss the amendments to clause 7, which provide for a wider consultation across the education landscape, including the community. We need that type of expanded and holistic co-production approach to ensure that we can address parental preference. <BR /> <BR />There are a number of amendments in group 2 that change the word "promote" to "support".”
“I did not have sight of the Minister or Department's amendments in advance of the deadline; last Friday was the first time that I could review those amendments. It is unfortunate that we did not get an opportunity to talk together about what the Minister and I were proposing to bring forward, because I am sure that we could have got something together on which we agreed. I can confirm, however, that I will support the Minister's amended clause 3. <BR /> <BR />I have had conversations with Mr McCrossan and the rest of his party about his amendment No 22. The current system considers a limited number of items when deciding whether a school's development proposal will be approved.”
“I am very pleased to speak on the group 2 amendments to the Bill, which concentrate on advice, guidance and support. <BR /> <BR />Throughout this process, I said that I was listening to and happy to take account of suggestions for improvement from the Minister and Members. I have considered the amendments in this group and confirm that I will support the Minister's amended clause 3. I met the Minister's officials last Friday and explained that to them explicitly. I will, therefore, support amendment Nos 10 and 12. That will have effect on the consequential amendments. I assume that my amendment No 11 will not, then, be taken forward. <BR /> <BR />I am very pleased that the Minister placed the onus on the Department, rather than on the education bodies, to consult:”
“I imagine that I could agree with Mr Allister if integrated education was provided and there was lots of availability across Northern Ireland, but the simple fact is that, when a child is not able to get into their local integrated school, it is very unlikely that they will stay in the integrated sector. They will have to go, against their parents' preference, into another sector. They will receive an excellent education, but the parental preference is not provided.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. As part of the work that I have done over the years on the Bill, I have considered how it works, especially from primary to post-primary schools. To assure him, when I spoke to many parents, two sectoral bodies and two different parts of the education landscape, it was confirmed that parents put down their preferences on their transfer papers. If someone has identified an integrated school and is not lucky enough to get into that school, there is no other integrated option to choose from; the rest of the options are maintained and controlled.”