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 27 of 53.
“As far as the controlled sector is concerned, a huge number of integrated schools are in the controlled sector, so why would I criticise it? <BR /> <BR />The reason why I tabled amendments in group 1, which covers definitions and purpose, was to make sure that we understood that widening the definition was to bring in children of all faiths and none. The independent review of integrated education recommended widening the definition. Some have criticised my consultation. I say clearly to the House that I asked the Speaker whether further consultation was needed, and he said no. He was content with the consultation that had been completed. Anyone who wants to criticise me needs to direct their comments to the Speaker's Office. It provided me with that guidance, and I provided the letter to members of the Education Committee.”
“As many Members know, during the process, after Second Stage, I engaged with a number of them several times to make sure that I understood exactly what the issues were with the Bill, and I said that, where I could, I would table amendments. I also knew of other amendments coming in. As I said earlier, I was always happy to make good legislation. <BR /> <BR />Others have made me out to be the big bad demon who is trying to destroy all types of sectors. That is so far from the truth. I was brought up in maintained sector education. I had a fantastic education and have absolutely no problem with Catholic education under CCMS. I am disappointed that some of the commentary from that sector has demonised me. I find that extremely disingenuous.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It has been an interesting conversation so far, but I will start off by saying something that may well surprise some Members: I will support a number of the Minister's amendments. When I met the Minister's departmental officials recently, I told them that, having seen her amendments, I found that there were some that I could take forward because they answer some of the issues that have emerged.”
“I am not sure whether the Member has read through the amendments. In group 1, the Committee's amendment No 69 would remove that. I met the Department and explained what I was supporting and not supporting in the Bill. There already is an amendment on that.”
“I was just going to say to my fellow Member from Strangford that I tabled amendment No 27 and the Minister and the Department tabled amendment No 29 on the presumption that new schools will be integrated schools. As I said, my ears have been open throughout the process, and amendments have been tabled. I have just about broken the Bill Office trying to get an amendment that is within scope, but amendment Nos 27 and 29 should hopefully address those concerns.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I want to clarify that, as part of the Committee pack, I provided a letter from the Speaker, from whom I sought clarification about whether I needed to carry out another consultation in 2019 when the House was back and we were coming together, in which he clearly said that the consultation completed in 2016 was perfectly valid for this legislation.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. 'The Report of the Independent Review of Integrated Education' was published in 2017. The Department of Education had the opportunity to take forward the recommendations of that report. Some were taken forward but the majority were not, and my Bill deals with that. I am not sure if the Member is saying that there should not be private Members' Bills. We wrote to the then Minister, who said that the Department was not taking forward those recommendations. If the Department is not taking those forward, what other way can we get it for the integrated education movement?”
“I ask the Member to point out where the Bill says that no other sector delivers diversity. The Bill is about integrated education; it is silent on other sectors.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. I appreciate what you are trying to say about my consultation. However, we had a Committee Stage, and the Committee completed substantial consultation on the Bill. Up-to-date consultation is available, and you can read that in the Committee pack. It is not just me who has consulted on it; a Committee, which has members from your party, also did so.”
“I am concerned for those pupils, and I ask that clarification is provided for pupils and their teachers about what is going to happen with exams. <BR /> <BR />Today, school leaders have been told that the Engage II programme may be used flexibly. Is that robbing Peter to pay Paul? Engage II is supposed to provide support for students who need extra help. If those staff are redeployed, what happens to the children who were availing themselves of that support? Are they to be left behind? What does that say about what we think about children with special educational needs? If teachers, unions, students and parents are saying that they need a plan, then it is time for a transparent plan — with clarification — to be provided. I support the call for a plan and want the safety of our pupils and staff —”
“<BR /> <BR />I also ask that we think about uniforms. It is not good enough to say that each school should be putting down their own uniform policy. I ask the Minister to consider making an announcement — I look forward to hearing it — to allow children who are shivering in classrooms to be permitted to wear whatever they need to in order to keep warm. <BR /> <BR />Keeping schools open is important for our students, not just for their physical learning but for their mental health. Students are worried about a return to remote learning — in fact, we heard today that some have returned to remote learning — and we have heard students on the radio today saying that they are concerned about their safety in schools.”
“I declare an interest as a member of the boards of governors of Strangford College and of Portaferry Integrated Primary School. I will not use too much of my time talking around the issues. Like the Member who just spoke, I want to see solutions, so I simply ask that the General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland and NASUWT are listened to when they say that school leaders and teachers are struggling due to staff shortages. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on that. <BR /> <BR />Ventilation is one of the key tools needed if we are to keep schools open, and I fully support that we do, but the solution presented by some is mechanical ventilation. Over recess, we heard from the Department of Finance that no bid for such ventilation had been submitted. I ask the Minister to clarify whether that is true.”
“We have already seen in every Bill that we have considered to date how any clause can throw up unintended consequences. I ask that Members agree to the extension to allow us to give the Bill the attention that it deserves. I commend the motion to the House.”
“It will also amend schedule 11 to the Land Registration Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 to enable a charge securing a loan provided under article 13 to be registered in the Statutory Charges Register. That is in line with the policy intention to ensure that a loan is recovered if there is available equity when it becomes repayable after prior charges on the property have been repaid. <BR /> <BR />The Minister highlighted to the Committee the difficulties with the outworkings of the current legislation, and members accept the need for a change to the law. Members were not content to proceed without a call for evidence, however. They were also not convinced that their consideration of the Bill should have come before that of the other important Bills already at Committee Stage.”
“While it is a short Bill, with only two clauses, Members need to be mindful that the Department has not carried out any consultation on it. That now becomes the job of the Committee. We have issued a call for evidence and commissioned a research briefing, and we may take oral evidence in January. It might be that the Committee does not need all of the extension that we seek, and we will endeavour to report as quickly as we can in the new year. We have liaised with the Bill Office in setting the extension date. <BR /> <BR />The Bill will amend article 13 of the Welfare Reform and Work (Northern Ireland) Order 2016 to allow a support for mortgage interest loan provided to be charged on the property for which that loan is made.”
“On behalf of the Committee for Communities, I request Members' support to extend the Committee Stage of the Support for Mortgage Interest etc (Security for Loans) Bill to 18 February 2022.”
“While I am happy to support the progress of the Bill as it completes its Final Stage, I am hopeful that similar provision or legislation in the future will be broader in scope and will perhaps be more focused on increasing participation in sports. In the meantime and at this Final Stage, the Alliance Party and I are happy to support the amended Bill.”
“I rise today on behalf of the Alliance Party in support of the Horse Racing (Amendment) Bill. The Bill is largely technical in nature and has been introduced ostensibly as a result of nuances in the Horse Racing (Northern Ireland) Order 1990, which governs the management and allocation of payments from the horse racing fund. As the objective of the Bill is to seek the full reinstatement of support under the horse racing fund as soon as possible, I commend the Minister and his officials for the swift progression of this Bill. I also commend the members of the AERA Committee for raising, at Committee Stage, the issue of the payments for spend incurred by racecourses. <BR /> <BR />As already has been mentioned, amendment No 2 aims to address that.”
“Environmental, food safety, animal welfare and labour issues are now critical considerations when developing the new approaches and support systems that are needed to better address the needs of Northern Ireland agriculture, the environment and rural communities. There are, as was mentioned, a broad range of farming and environmental stakeholders who deserve the opportunity to engage more fully in the development of policy relating to the sector. <BR /> <BR />In Northern Ireland, direct payments are worth over £293 million annually. Future payments need to support farming and rural communities whilst benefiting the sustainability and profitability of farming and, more crucially, the environment. On behalf of Alliance, I support what is before us, and we hope to secure the continued passage of the regulations.”
“It is imperative to stress from the outset the importance of the agri-food sector to the Northern Ireland economy. It represents around 10% of economic activity, which is considerably higher than the overall average in the rest of the UK. Furthermore, the profile of the agriculture sector and associated industries in Northern Ireland varies considerably from those across the UK. The Northern Ireland industry is built around quality, rather than necessarily scale. Standards are fundamental and are a matter of pride to all stakeholders in the sector. <BR /> <BR />The United Kingdom's leaving the EU and the common agricultural policy (CAP) is one of the most significant changes in policy affecting the agri-food sector in over 40 years.”
“You have been heard. We listened. The Minister is progressing your legislation.”
“I hope that I have outlined the Committee's ongoing engagement on the subject. Although the Committee fully supports the Minister in bringing forward this very important legislation as a very welcome first step, I hope that it will not be too long before we see the Department gather the data that it needs in order to look further at a clinical judgement model. We welcome the Minister's comment that the legislation is a staging post. On behalf of the Committee, I support the Bill's principles. <BR /> <BR />I will now speak as the Alliance Party communities spokesperson. I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill. I thank Marie Curie and the Motor Neurone Disease Association for their ongoing work to take forward this important legislation for people with terminal illness. Northern Ireland is scrapping the six-month rule.”
“<BR /> <BR />Minister, it has been highlighted that evidence of the need for a change to a model based on clinical judgement has been growing for some time. Walter Rader's independent review of the personal independence payment (PIP) assessment process from 2018 recommends:”
“Following the ministerial briefing at the Committee on 11 November, we wrote to the Minister to advise that the Committee would support accelerated passage. <BR /> <BR />The Committee is aware that the Department intends to monitor international best practice to consider the option of looking further into the feasibility of a clinical-led approach in the longer term. The Committee is supportive of that, but, closer to home, stakeholders highlighted to us the system based on clinical judgement adopted in the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018. It was highlighted to the Committee that, under the Scottish system, it is up to the claimant's GP, consultant or other clinical professional to determine whether they are terminally ill for the purpose of applying for fast-track welfare support.”
“We were advised by the Department that it had been working closely with the DWP review of terminal illness provision that commenced in July 2019 and that it had ensured that local stakeholder views from claimants, clinicians and charities were gathered and fed into that work. The Committee then wrote to DWP on the issue, and it advised that it remained committed to implementing the key areas identified in the evaluation: a consensus to change the six-month rule; improving the consistency with other services used by people nearing the end of their lives; and raising awareness of the support that is available. We then exchanged several letters with the Minister and the Department on the issue, requesting updates and time frames for the introduction of the Bill that is now in front of us.”
“There, the six-month rule has been replaced by a system based on clinical judgement, and medical professionals use their expertise to judge when someone is terminally ill for the purpose of applying for welfare payments, rather than the decision being based on a time-bound life expectancy. Stakeholders informed us that they would like a similar clinically led model to be adopted in Northern Ireland in due course. Nevertheless, they have welcomed the news that the Department for Communities plans to introduce legislation to remove the six-month rule as a necessary first step. <BR /> <BR />As a result of that stakeholder event, the Committee wrote to the Department to request an update on the ongoing work and to find out what alternative options were being considered in relation to a fairer definition of terminal illness.”
“<BR /> <BR />As I mentioned in my earlier remarks in support of accelerated passage, the Committee has kept this matter on its agenda since early 2020, and I feel that it is worth highlighting the issues that were brought to us. Back in February 2020, when the Committee held an event with stakeholders, members were advised that the current legal definition of terminal illness of a life expectancy of six months or less excludes many claimants from gaining welfare support under the special rules for terminal illness and has no basis in the clinical reality of many conditions. Members were also informed of positive changes in Scotland.”
“On behalf of the Committee for Communities, I welcome the Bill's Second Stage and support its principles. On 11 November 2021, when the Committee was briefed by the Minister on the need for accelerated passage, members were informed that the Bill will replace the life expectancy time frame of six months with one of 12 months in the definition of terminally ill in the relevant primary and secondary legislation governing each of the five social security benefits. The Committee is aware that the 12-month time frame has been chosen by the Minister to align more closely with that used by the health service in Northern Ireland and the General Medical Council for end-of-life care.”
“However, the Committee is also aware that unpredictable conditions such as motor neurone disease, chronic heart failure and others make it difficult for medical professionals to give an accurate estimation of life expectancy. <BR /> <BR />I am sure that the debate at Second Stage will go into more detail on the need for the extension to 12 months and on that being a necessary first step before we look beyond the fixed time period to determine whether clinical judgement should be the way forward. The Committee is therefore supportive of the motion that the Bill proceeds via accelerated passage as a necessary first step in improving the situation quickly.”
“I will touch on that in more detail during the Second Stage debate. <BR /> <BR />Committee members are supportive of the legislation being in place as soon as possible. As we know, the issue is one of timing and is about ensuring that terminally ill people get the financial support that they are entitled to as quickly as possible so that they can have the best quality of life possible during the time that they have left. <BR /> <BR />The Committee heard evidence that the current time barrier to financial support can be devastating for terminally ill claimants. In the worst cases, we are aware of people who have died while waiting for their payments because of delays associated with the current process.”
“In line with the ministerial statement at the end of June, the Committee for Communities supports the change brought forward by the Bill to replace the life expectancy time frame of six months with 12 months in the definition of terminally ill in the relevant legislation for each of the five social security benefits. <BR /> <BR />As the Minister said, at its meeting on 11 November, the Committee was briefed on the reasons why the Bill needs to proceed under accelerated passage. Members recognised the urgent need to put the measures in place quickly, as the reform will open up the scope of the current system to enable more terminally ill people to qualify for fast-track access to the relevant benefits. The Committee has taken evidence on that and has been calling for it since early 2020.”
“Thank you very much for your statement, Minister. You mentioned the latest language developments. Will you update the House on how the Irish language, Ulster Scots and sign language are being developed in Northern Ireland, particularly for early years?”
“Minister, I thank you for saying and recognising that people need time. I have been involved with miscarriage for 27 years. How much longer do we have to wait?”
“Thank you very much, Minister. I hear what you say. Of course we want to make appropriate legislation, but I clearly laid out to you why what you have put forward in amendment No 4 cannot work. There is no legislation — there is nothing — that measures how many people have miscarriages. The wording in amendment No 4 is difficult for someone who has had a miscarriage to read. It is not a consultation; it is a report. Minister, unless you are valid about this, that does not respond to what you have put forward.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. The reason why I do not want stillbirths or children who die after birth to be divided from miscarriages is the mental health harm that miscarriage causes to parents. They are hidden away behind curtains in hospitals because nobody wants to catch that miscarriage bug. It has harmed women, in particular, for years. Let us not do that. Let us not go down that pathway. <BR /> <BR />Minister, I hope that you can recognise that it is wider than your remit and portfolio in Economy. It is about the mental health and well-being of parents, in particular women, who lose children during miscarriage. If we tell them that they are too difficult or that their loss is not the same, it will cause harm. That is an unintended consequence that needs to be considered.”
“Thank you very much for giving way, Minister, and I thank you for setting out that timescale. We have just come out of COVID, however, when things could be turned around quite quickly. I ask the Minister this: can he please be careful with his words? What this sounds like to me is, on one side, parents who miscarried holding back everyone else who lost a child. That is how it comes across. Can we please just accept the fact that there are ways in which we can do things quicker in this place? We have done them quickly, although perhaps not exactly right, especially during COVID with some of the grants, but where there is a will, there may well be a way.”
“You have to prove that you have had a miscarriage. That negative pregnancy test is how you prove that you have lost an early pregnancy. Minister, there is a lot of work to be done. At this stage, we get that work done by putting miscarriage into the legislation.”
“I can support amendment No 10, which was proposed by the Minister, because it adds miscarriage to the long title, but, at this stage, the assumptions about the consultation and the amount of money that he thinks it will cost are wrong. That is why I tabled a motion that asks for a register of miscarriages that happen at home, which is the majority of them; of miscarriages that are notified to GPs, which is some of them; and of the very few miscarriages that happen in hospitals, so that we can get some figures. <BR /> <BR />Believe me, I would not have been going to any of my employers, even with the Bill coming forward, to ask for miscarriage leave, because, unfortunately, my miscarriages were all early, and it was not the time for me to tell my employer. There will be a lot of people like that.”
“That language shows that the Bill is all about money and not about people, albeit I understand that the Bill comes from the Department for the Economy. <BR /> <BR />I once helped the Department of Health write a bereavement leaflet for couples who had experienced miscarriage following IVF. At the start, the language that people were coming out with was callous. We got the language changed so that it was more user-friendly. Amendment No 4 is callous. I cannot accept it, one, because of the language and, two, because it defines people who have miscarried as something separate, something different and something unusual. Whether people are entitled or not, that amendment sets a scene that is not good enough. <BR /> <BR />I will support the Committee amendments.”
“Thank you for that. It was very hard for me to understand why anyone would think that the first 56 days is the only time that you grieve for a child. The anniversary of a child's death can often trigger deep, deep sorrow in a couple and a family. When siblings get the opportunity to commemorate their brother or sister's death, that is a hard time. The clarification that it is 56 weeks is fantastic. <BR /> <BR />At the start, when I saw amendment No 4, I thought, "Oh, they are going to ask people who have had a miscarriage what they actually think". Then, when I read it, Minister, I had to say, "Back to school on this one". Language is key with baby loss. The language used in your amendment No 4 would appear in the Bill, and that language is horrendous. As a bereavement counsellor, I know that that language is not good enough.”
“If you miscarry, you do not know when your child has died inside you. Quite often, you only know the date when that was confirmed by a negative pregnancy test. It is quite callous and hard to say that. Why is it 56 days? Why is it not 56 weeks? The anniversary of a child's death is one of the hardest —”
“If the Committee's amendments go through, there are 12 months. Why not have a real conversation with people who have miscarried during that 12 months? You will find out how many of us actually request time off from our employers and how many want to be involved. These amendments will, at long last, allow parents who have had a miscarriage to not be treated as the taboo and to be able to come forward and say, "I have had a loss, and I need a bit of time". <BR /> <BR />I want to point out to all of you something that I noticed in the Bill. I had thought of amending it, as one has not come forward on it so far. Under "Rate and period of pay", subsection (5) states:”
“Thank you, Minister. <BR /> <BR />I come to my main point on amendment No 4. Amendment No 4, new clause 3, will bring forward a report, not legislation. I am sorry: my grief about pregnancy loss at 16 weeks, 12 weeks or 6 weeks is exactly the same as that of someone who is 24 weeks plus three days; I am not different. I am not a report; I deserve legislation, and so do all the other mums and dads out there. When I saw amendment No 3 to clause 2 and its inclusion of miscarriage from the very start, I thought, "Do you know what? That is what we need. We need parents who have suffered baby loss to be included from day 1". They should not be excluded, with the possibility of a report a couple of years down the road. I am sorry, Minister: I cannot agree with you on that. <BR /> <BR />On the money side of things, you have 12 months.”
“You will not get information about how many employees have come forward to say that they are miscarrying or have miscarried because of the fear of their employer's and HR's rules. Currently, they will not come forward with it. I am concerned about that.”
“If you lose a baby before 24 weeks, you lose a baby. I also have to say, Minister, that I am really sorry, but the evidence that you are looking for is not there. Where will you find that evidence? From years of working in the miscarriage field, I know that, when you ask how many people in Northern Ireland have had miscarriages and you go to the health records, you get the records only of those who appeared at a hospital and had a miscarriage. That is as few as one in 10 of those of us who have had miscarriages. I was in hospital to have the remains removed only in the last of my 13 miscarriages. <BR /> <BR />Minister, your consultation is based on information that will cause such harm to people who have had miscarriages that they will not answer it.”
“That refers to any father or other mother. I cannot stand by that. After the years that I have been in miscarriage bereavement counselling with people, I know that those are the very words that cause people harm and years-long anguish. <BR /> <BR />New clause 3A(2)(d) says:”
“I had 13 children who died in my womb. They are dead children. Amendment No 4 seems to insinuate that mine were not children. I just cannot cope with that. <BR /> <BR />New clause 3A(2)(c) says:”
“As somebody who has had a miscarriage, I could not answer that, because you are making those of us who have had miscarriages different. You are segmenting even the group who have had miscarriages. <BR /> <BR />New clause 3A(2)(b) says:”
“I say that because new clause 3A(2) states:”
“I hid it, because I did not want to face it time and time again with HR and explain that I was off work for the third time that year because I had had another miscarriage. I could have been sacked. That is one of the realities of being a woman employed in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Some of you have complained that people who have miscarried did not respond to the consultation: of course we did not. Why would we? It was not in the Bill. I am used to not being treated as a grieving mother. I am used to being treated as that embarrassment sitting in the corner. The way that the Bill was originally drafted did not include me. It did not want me or see me as important. <BR /> <BR />Minister, I cannot support your amendment No 4. I come at the issue in a very different way. You have no hope of completing that consultation on the new clause.”