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 43 of 53.
“I am absolutely astonished that an organisation like Invisible Traffick goes out and talks to people who work at our ports, helping them to recognise the signs of a trafficked person by looking out for people who do not have any language skills and are unable to speak to anyone, to give them safe words that they can use with people at a reception desk to let somebody know that they have been trafficked and to watch out for people who do not lift their head, keep their head down and constantly look at the person who is threatening them to keep quiet. <BR /> <BR />It is time that we stopped this in Northern Ireland. It is time that we supported our agencies to ensure that they can support victims. We should not send victims home and back to the sort of life that would end up bringing them back here.”
“<BR /> <BR />Lord McColl of Dulwich seeks in his private Member's Bill of 2017, which was reintroduced in January 2020, to amend the Modern Slavery Act 2015 by extending the time that victims are entitled to support to 12 months and to guarantee leave to remain for victims during that time, but the UK Government have already said that they do not support leave to remain. I ask the Minister to let us know about the work that she can do and any action that she can take to support victims here. I want her to know that I absolutely thank her, her Department, the statutory agencies, the police and civic society organisations like Invisible Traffick, which operates dedicated support for those who have been trafficked and raises awareness in schools, businesses, the haulage industry and ports.”
“For instance, as many Members will know, I am a geek on transport, and I would love to see the certificate for professional competence for haulage drivers include a section that makes them aware of trafficking and ensures that they know that they do not carry people as produce in their lorries. I would love to see more coming from Health to stop those children's homes allowing drug dealers to take our children away. We need to find the victims, and we need to give them support. It is vital that the public know how to spot the signs. The traffickers, who are men and women, make those victims' lives intolerable.”
“We have car washes, as has been mentioned by Mr Newton, we have nail bars and we have domestic service. We have people who are being sold for sex on a regular basis today in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />There are organisations that I have the absolute privilege to know, and I thank them for hosting an Invisible Traffick event in the Long Gallery a number of years ago where we heard the harrowing experience of a lady from Belfast who had been taken by somebody whom, she thought, she loved and sold for five years for sex and prostitution in Dublin. It is not always people who come from outside; people are doing it here, now and every day. I would love to see not just the Minister of Justice but the whole Executive make a real committed effort to get rid of trafficking.”
“I will not repeat what so many have said, but it is worth pointing out that trafficking and modern slavery are a disgusting underbelly of criminal activity that affects not just Northern Ireland but the whole world. It is right that, on Anti-Slavery Day this Sunday, as many others have said, we raise further awareness of trafficking. Most people think that it has to be somebody who is stolen against their will and brought into this country, but, often, it is not just those people. There are people in Northern Ireland today, tomorrow and the next day who will be affected by trafficking. Unfortunately, you have only to watch the cars pull up outside some of our children's homes to see some of the traffickers who take our children out, ply them with drugs and sell them for sex.”
“I support the motion. It is very clear that, for years, Alliance has said that an official Opposition should be in place. Like Mr Allister, we agree on the nonsense that we have with mandatory coalition. It forces together people who would not normally sit comfortably together. <BR /> <BR />In the winding-up speech, I would like clarification of the "relevant period" that is discussed in the Standing Order. Has the clock started ticking from January 2020? Does it apply in this mandate, or is it only for future mandates?”
“It would be helpful if Members of Executive parties do what they can to help the Chief Constable and the Minister deliver increased policing numbers, as we all agreed to do in the publicly published 'New Decade, New Approach' document. Ministers will fail if we do not have the resources. We do not have the resources, so we have to ask elsewhere. That is why I am supporting the amendment today. <BR /> <BR />It came as no shock when this came up. We know the resource implications because, after all, we were all in shock when New Decade, New Approach came forward without the required funding for it, earlier this year. I say to everyone, across all Benches, that we do need more police officers. We have a Minister who is working for more police officers. Let us work together and let her achieve that target.”
“We all know that we could meet the New Decade, New Approach target numbers if there was the money to do so. The Chief Constable has already said that he is looking to grow officer numbers to 7,100 by the end of this financial year. That is hardly him being inactive. In fact, we are currently standing with 6,903 full-time officers and 242 part-time officers. Mr Chambers, if a recruitment process were to go forward, we could at least hit that 7,100 target and, by the end of the mandate, the 7,500. <BR /> <BR />To reach that target, we all need to support the Minister to ensure that her Department has enough funding to achieve that shared goal. Indeed, the role of Committees is not just to scrutinise but to assist the Minister to fulfil her role.”
“Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. I probably will not take the full four minutes. <BR /> <BR />I support the amendment, as confirmed by my colleague John Blair earlier in this debate. If we are to deliver on the priorities that were agreed by the Executive parties in New Decade, New Approach, we absolutely need more resources to do so, and that has been highlighted today. The Minister of Justice has not been inactive on the number of police officers across Northern Ireland, and the PSNI has been not inactive. I take this opportunity to thank the Chief Constable and all the officers who have throughout the pandemic while others have worked from home. <BR /> <BR />Those on the Policing Board will have had updates on the strategic outline case that was submitted by the PSNI on police officer numbers.”
“<BR /> <BR />Finally, I pay tribute to all who have lobbied for this change. I pay tribute to the many families, to Craig Harrison and Marie Curie, to the 25 charities, to the 60 clinicians, academics and experts, and to all in the Chamber who will support the motion. Together, we can send a clear message from this place that we will bring forward legislation to remove the six-month rule. We will provide guidance to health professionals and adopt a fairer definition of terminal illness and unlock fast-tracked access to benefits. Thank you for your time. I commend the motion to the House.”
“It will cost money. It will be another draw on the limited amount of block grant that we receive, but I believe that it is a better Government who chooses to look after and invest in people when they need it the most. I ask the Minister for Communities to represent all of us in the Executive to change the legal definition of terminal illness, to scrap the six-month rule and to proceed with her intended bid for the money needed for us to cover the cost of fast-tracking people with life-limiting conditions until such times as Westminster sees sense. I trust our Minister for Communities to do the right thing. I trust every Member and each party here to support her. I urge her to keep challenging the Department for Work and Pensions to fix the system and to mainstream better and fairer access to support for people who are terminally ill.”
“Mr Justice McAlinden described the difference in treatment as "manifestly without reasonable foundation". <BR /> <BR />Twenty-five health charities wrote to the Minister for Communities calling for the scrapping of the six-month rule. I know that the Minister for Communities is considering how to effect the process, and I know that she is committed to reviewing the welfare mitigations to ensure that we have the right mix of support to help people. I propose that scrapping the six-month rule is one measure that we can all support. <BR /> <BR />It is shameful that the Department for Work and Pensions has not changed the special rule for terminal illness or the legal definition of terminal illness, especially in the face of such overwhelming evidence. Until it does the honourable thing, it is up to us to take forward a devolved solution.”
“Walter Rader's independent review of PIP in 2018 also recommended that the six-month rule be replaced with the process used in Scotland. The all-party parliamentary group for terminal illness in Westminster's inquiry stated that the six-month rule is not fit for purpose. It too recommended the clinical judgement model. On the same day that the inquiry report was published in July 2019, the DUP, Sinn Féin, the SDLP, the Alliance Party, the Green Party and People Before Profit issued a joint call for reform of the six-month rule. The Assembly also has an all-party group on terminal illness. <BR /> <BR />On 8 July this year, Belfast High Court ruled that the difference in treatment for terminally ill welfare claimants who cannot reasonably meet the six-month life expectancy under the special rules is discriminatory.”
“Imagine the difference that makes. Instead of a consultant having to give someone a timeline for their death, they are helping the person to access financial support, which is one of the things that causes people with terminal illness the most stress. <BR /> <BR />For someone who is terminally ill, the application becomes a step in the process. As 60 clinicians, academics and other experts stated in an open letter, they must not continue to be subjected to the six-month rule as it:”
“Through that, medical professionals use their clinical judgement to determine when someone is terminally ill so that they can apply for benefits under the special rules for terminal illness. In Scotland, the definition for terminal illness is that:”
“There is evidence in GB from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) that, on average, almost 10 people have died every day since 2018 while waiting for their eligibility for PIP to be decided. We do not hold evidence for that in Northern Ireland, but I dread to imagine what the average figure might be. <BR /> <BR />Time is something that people who are terminally ill, sadly, do not have. If the legal definition of terminal illness was changed to move to a more clinical judgement instead of being a measurement of time left, it would open the fast-track social security access for people at a time when they need help. That is not something that is out of the blue. The Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 already exists.”
“People with life-limiting illnesses face severe financial pressures at a time when they cannot afford to. Being unable to work due to illness and constant hospital visits, parking costs, a carer having to leave their paid employment to look after you, needing to pay for adaptations to the home and having the heating on more often mean that being ill is not cheap. Indeed, Marie Curie confirmed that a terminal illness costs an additional £3,000 per patient per year. That means that social security support is a lifeline for terminally ill people and their family. <BR /> <BR />I am sure that others here today will be able to share the devastating impact that financial pressures and delays in accessing support have had on people with terminal illnesses, and they may risk losing their home and leaving mortgage arrears to their family.”
“We should be helping the person to live as full a life as possible rather than giving them red tape to deal with just to be able to access a social security benefit a little bit more quickly. The unfairness of this rule means that people are being turned away from being able to access social security benefits quickly because they are not close enough to death. At a time when they are more likely to be unable to work due to illness, are undergoing treatment and are worried about their family, we are subjecting them to the bureaucracy of the welfare system, and, Mr Speaker, like others in this Chamber, I know how convoluted and complicated the welfare system can be. <BR /> <BR />Many of us in the Chamber know how long the delays to access welfare benefits can be.”
“Marie Curie, which has been lobbying for a change to the special rules for terminal illness in social security law, confirms that quantitative evidence reinforces how difficult it is for medical professionals to provide accurate predictions of life expectancy for dying patients. A study of over 8,000 palliative care patients in 2006 found that accuracy varied from 23% to 78%. Imagine being the person who is terminally ill having to go their consultant to ask them to confirm how much time they have left so that they can get a benefit. Imagine, then, being turned down for the benefit because your doctor cannot accurately predict when you will die. <BR /> <BR />Why are we putting people through this? Is this the type of government that we want?”
“To apply, the person must get a DS1500 form completed by their GP, consultant or specialist nurse in order to confirm their condition and treatment. That means that a consultant is confirming that you have six months or fewer left to live. That is tough and hard for any medical professional to predict. I feel that it is so finite. It is a bit cold, and it is unnecessary. Imagine having to fill out a piece of paper telling someone that they have six months left to live. Imagine the impact that it has on the GP, consultant or specialist nurse to have to complete a piece of paper giving a timeline to a person who is fighting to stay with their family for as long as possible. <BR /> <BR />Many life-limiting or terminal illnesses cannot be predicted in numbers of months left to live.”
“I believe that, together, we can make life a little easier by taking forward a mitigation measure that will, once and for all, deal with a benefits process that is a cruel rule — it is hard to say that. <BR /> <BR />The current process confirms that people who are living with a terminal illness can apply for fast-track access to social security payments such as PIP, universal credit (UC), employment and support allowance (ESA) and attendance allowance under special rules for terminal illness. The current legal definition of terminal illness that is used to give you access to the fast-track application process is:”
“The motion that I have tabled is very difficult for me, so please forgive me if my voice shakes. It may also be difficult for some Members in the Chamber. <BR /> <BR />Terminal illness touches us through our friends, families and some who have had such a diagnosis. It is a shocking diagnosis for the person who receives the news, their loved ones and all who know them. It is also difficult for the people whose job is normally to save lives — the consultants and the doctors— to have to tell someone that their illness is terminal. It is emotionally draining. <BR /> <BR />Today, I ask the House to make life for people with a life-limiting condition a little easier. I believe that we have a Minister for Communities who gets it. I believe that we have an Assembly that gets it.”
“We all need to come together to support you in the short, medium and long term.”
“<BR /> <BR />From catastrophe comes opportunity, and that can only be achieved together. I will support the motion, but that is not a negative move against you, Minister. I believe that we need to help you.”
“I also asked what sort of information they were getting through from Economy, and they said that they were not getting any. I found that quite shocking. Can we have joined-up working? I am prepared to back you to the hilt, but we need a wee bit more. I know that we are all tired, and everybody is a bit grumpy. I do not know whether everybody has noticed that we have the October blues at the moment. We need to identify employment opportunities and ensure that the workforce is enabled to apply for those jobs. It is not just about training. There are 900 universal credit jobs coming up in Communities to enable people to apply for that. Lots of things are happening soon. I believe that we can use the Kickstart scheme and the apprenticeship scheme to get people into employment.”
“Thank you very much. <BR /> <BR />Yes, I absolutely agree. Imagine that you are a singer who was employed by a pub. That is it — your income is gone. Then, you apply for universal credit, for which there is five-week wait, and, all of a sudden, your house is in danger because you cannot pay your mortgage. <BR /> <BR />While jobs and benefits are within the remit of the Communities Minister, I am keen to hear what joined-up working there has been between the Minister for the Economy and the Minister for Communities to ensure that the people being made redundant have the best possible opportunity to gain employment as soon as possible. I contacted a jobs and benefits office to ask the staff what direction they are giving to people and what types of new businesses they are telling them to go to for employment.”
“What support will there be for other areas where localised COVID restrictions force businesses to stop or to reduce trading again? Those businesses were just starting back on the road, and the plug has been pulled. As Mr Middleton said, there are wonderful people and amazing Chambers of Commerce with amazing ideas, but getting hit with another mini-lockdown is impacting their health and well-being and causing people to lose their job. <BR /> <BR />While jobs and benefits —.”
“With that detail, it would help us to identify exactly who they are and where they are. I expect that most of them are SMEs. <BR /> <BR />I would also like the Minister to confirm to the House what she and her Department plan to do to build trust again with a lot of those entrepreneurs. They were left out because they had started up their own business and perhaps, because they had not registered as their own employee, were outside the schemes. I do not know how we as a government will get those innovative businesses to come back, invest and grow in this place when they feel so let down. This place has not done that; it has happened because of COVID. <BR /> <BR />I would also like the Minister to confirm what support will be provided to the north-west, because it is not the only place that will have a local lockdown.”
“They have been through the Go For It programme and have set up their own businesses — small enterprises — and even employed staff. However, many have fallen outside the remit of the UK Treasury's self-employed income support scheme. Those individuals feel abandoned. As reported in our local newspapers, one being 'The Irish News', one individual said that, if her business had been located in Scotland or Wales, she would have received hardship funds to support her through four difficult months. It is a difficult thing to read, especially given the fact that we are all here in government. <BR /> <BR />We need to get back to reality. Minister, it would be really useful to know, from your Department, how many businesses and the type of businesses that have not received financial support.”
“However, as the Minister knows, some businesses and employers have not been able to avail themselves of support. We need to let their voices be heard. <BR /> <BR />As a member of the Committee for Communities, I have been inundated — inundated — with calls from those businesses and businesspeople who feel that they have been left behind. They are banned from working. While the Minister for Communities has been successful in her business case to access further funds for the arts, as my colleague Andrew Muir mentioned, a number of businesses — in the events sector, for instance — are still banned from working and unable to generate an income. <BR /> <BR />Mr Aiken referred to one of my key speaking points for this evening. Many of those businesses are self-starters.”
“When you get to this stage in a debate, you quite often find that what you wanted to say has already been said. However, I would like to add a little more. <BR /> <BR />As many Members said, COVID has really had a negative impact not only on the health of our community but on workers and the economy. Of course it has. This crisis is quite different from any previous crises. The impact of the lockdown has gone way beyond anyone's expected trade shocks. Much of the negative impact has been sector-specific. We have all heard from the manufacturing industry, the hospitality industry and the retail sector about the impacts that they have faced. Many of those businesses, thankfully, have availed themselves of financial support schemes to retain employees and keep their businesses afloat.”
“Perhaps, then, we could have an outcome that enables the parole commission to continue to do its work and families to contribute to the outcome. <BR /> <BR />I have proposed an amendment that reflects the ongoing work of the Department of Justice. I say again that it has a consultation, there is a sentencing review, and it seeks legislation to be taken forward where appropriate, because I believe that Helen's law will not deliver what families want. Families do not need further pain or distress. Helen's law will not keep offenders in prison for non-disclosure. I ask all Members to consider voting for the amendment.”
“No-one in this room wants families to wait any longer for their loved ones to be returned to them. I do not believe that any of us in the Chamber want non-disclosure to be simply taken into account. That is why the amendment goes further than the motion and asks the Minister to take forward her consultation, sentencing review and legislation and not just to replicate Helen's law. <BR /> <BR />As I said, I thank the DUP Members for tabling the motion. It is a private Member's motion, and the discussion today, no matter what happens, will not bind the Minister of Justice or any Minister to take action. I suggest that, if we are to take this forward, we need to have meetings with the Justice Minister and, perhaps, the Justice Committee could take it under its remit as part of its work.”
“I think that we all agree that the parole commission should be able to take decisions on the basis of its independent consideration. Politicians should not be able to interfere in sentencing. <BR /> <BR />As outlined in my amendment, the Minister and the Department of Justice have already commissioned a focused consultation with key stakeholders on Helen's law, and that is to run in parallel with finalising the outcome and the next steps flowing from the sentencing review, including legislation, where appropriate. Indeed, I will ask the Minister to confirm in her response today whether there is an opportunity to enable the parole commission to do more than it does today, which is to consider an offender's non-disclosure when making a decision about their release, and whether we can add a weighting to its decision.”
“Would it not be better to take into account when a prisoner has made no attempt and given no explanation for that lack of cooperation when weighing the risk that they pose to the public on release. While some in Westminster called for no disclosure to mean no release, that has not been included in Helen's law. If we bring Helen's law into Northern Ireland, it will not include that clause. It states only that the Parole Board "must take into account" non-disclosure. The resistance to doing so was to allow the Parole Board there to continue to take its own decisions. To deny parole, even on those grounds, would mean a fundamental change to the basis on which the Parole Commission makes release decisions and, indeed, would potentially impact on the framework for public protection sentences.”
“I know that the Minister of Justice is already committed not to equivalent legislation for Northern Ireland but to more than that. My amendment confirms that there is a consultation under way. There is a sentencing review. The legislation will be brought forward where appropriate. The amendment that I move acknowledges that the parole commission already takes matters into consideration when considering release. However, I do not think that anyone in the House wants the parole commissioner to just take into account or consider an offender's non-disclosure of remains or identification of a victim of illegal images. Surely, we should seek to have a weighting added to that consideration.”
“Preventing a prisoner from being eligible for release because they have not disclosed the location of their victim's remains could mean that there are those who are genuinely innocent who would be, in effect, imprisoned in perpetuity. It also does not allow for prisoners who genuinely cooperate but are unable to locate the remains due to the passage of time, loss of memory or difficulties finding distinguishing features and landmarks in the area. You would also find those people trapped in prison for ever. Whilst we may believe that a long prison sentence is commensurate with their brutal and cruel crimes, that would not reflect the sentence as handed down by the judge and would almost certainly be open to challenge on human rights grounds. <BR /> <BR />We can improve on the content and intent of Helen's law.”
“Before I speak on the amendment, I start by acknowledging the pain and trauma felt by the families of Charlotte Murray and Lisa Dorian and all families who still wait for their loved one to be returned to them. To deny a family the opportunity to say goodbye is cruel. I say directly to all those families, "I will not pretend to understand your ongoing pain. All I can say is that I am sorry". <BR /> <BR />I thank Mr Easton and Mr Givan for tabling the motion. There is much that I can agree with in the motion. The Alliance Party and I welcome the progress of the Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Bill in the UK Houses of Parliament. That law, known as Helen's law, is vital. However, the motion before us today goes far beyond what the Bill at Westminster includes.”
“<BR /> <BR />As the Minister outlined, had we to bring a Bill to the Assembly, it would take time, and, with the end of the transition period, we are heading into what will probably be one of the busiest periods that the Assembly will see for some years. I absolutely recognise, as others mentioned — Mark Durkan stole my thunder — the childcare issue raised by the Human Rights Commission with the Chair of the Committee. Going forward, we need to consider that. However, this time, even though we are extremely concerned about the implications for freedom of movement, the Alliance Party is content that the LCM should be passed and the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) progressed, as is necessary.”
“As others have said, the primary purpose of the Bill is to end EU rules on the free movement of persons in respect of the UK at the end of the transition period, which is not too far away. We know that that means that EU nationals who are not resident in the UK before the end of the transition period will be required to obtain permission for themselves and their family members to enter and remain in the UK under the UK's Immigration Act 1971. It will come as no surprise that this is one of the areas that Alliance is least comfortable with and does not support. We support the four freedoms within Europe, but we are realists, and we absolutely recognise and realise that what is contained in Part 2, clause 5 is vital if we are to move forward social security payments for those people.”
“Will there be any more money coming from Treasury, or do we need to send a clear message that that is it from big government and the rest has to be brought in with income?”
“Thank you very much to the Minister. I am delighted to see that the statement includes a kick-start to the hydrogen economy. We now have the opportunity to resolve Northern Ireland Water's problems if only we were to make it produce hydrogen. Do not get my geek up on that one. <BR /> <BR />When you get to this stage in questions — the Deputy Speaker has been very kind — it can be that all the questions have been asked. Mine is about joined-up working between the Minister's Department and the Treasury. Is this it? Is this the last of the money that we will see this year? We know, as you mentioned, that councils are vital to delivering on the ground. The Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE) told us that local government needed £40 million just to break even.”
“Tomorrow is "no car" day. As the Minister said, public transport is a critical public service. However, I have concerns that the rural, non-economically viable services may bite the big one, to be quite honest, if Translink gets into trouble. Can the Minister provide an assurance that rural areas will not suffer more as a result of the pressures?”
“Just in follow up to that, I will not ask about what is happening with maternity services at the Ulster Hospital, where miscarriages are also happening without partners present. Is it time, then, given the pressure on accident and emergency departments, for GPs to return to face-to-face appointments, thereby reducing the number of people turning up at A&E when they should be going to their GP?”
“I would like to just use my supplementary question to thank the Minister for getting to question 6 in topical questions.”
“Will the Minister consider extending the review to local government to assess whether additional functions could be added or transferred over.”
“I am delighted to hear the Minister say that we are working towards multi-annual budgets. Does he believe that a fiscal council needs to be up and running prior to the introduction of a multi-annual budget?”
“Minister, you mentioned that other jurisdictions were doing the same as we are doing here. Can you guarantee absolutely that that will not change during the year? A number of our students sit exams that are not only from CCEA but from other areas, and, if the other areas take the AS, it will have a detrimental impact.”
“As much as anything, it reinforces the need to consider mental health and well-being in everything that we do and to have people trained to deal with it in their everyday life, particularly in professions in the health sector and the police. I have no hesitation in recommending its roll-out across Northern Ireland. The experience of the past few months reinforces the urgency of that. <BR /> <BR />Although it is not mentioned in the motion, I expect that the Minister will work with Education to ensure that the mental health and well-being of our young people will be supported, given that their young lives have been so impacted. We do not want their legacy to fall to Health. I hope that we can get clarity on that from the Minister. The Alliance Party supports the motion.”
“<BR /> <BR />I put on record my frustration that the mental health strategy has been set back from its original timescale. It is more urgent now than ever. We can be clear that one of the defining aspects of the pandemic, when we look back on it in a few years' time, firmly in the rear-view mirror, hopefully, will be the mental health issues arising from it. We will need to proof almost everything that we do for its impact on mental well-being. This is the time for speeding up that work, not delaying it. <BR /> <BR />The MATT partnership that others have spoken about, which began in the South Eastern Trust two years ago, seems to have been a clear success.”