Declan Kearney
South Antrim · Sinn Féin · Northern Ireland
“The 'good jobs' Bill is designed to benefit every single worker across this society, regardless of background. It is not anti-business. It is about growing economic productivity and enhancing employment and workers' rights.”
“The rhetoric around proper scrutiny is a complete red herring; it is an attempt by the DUP to run down the clock in relation to the mandate. Why is that? What is the DUP afraid of? Why is it vetoing the 'good jobs' Bill?”
“The fallout from Brexit is a reality that is being felt hard by workers and families across the North daily, and that is illustrated in evidence sessions that we have received in the Economy Committee. In one, we learned that our electricity bills here are now higher as a result of Brexit.”
“Catastrophic, kamikaze economics, politically toxic — there is no other way to describe the Brexit debacle. Yet, 10 years on, those in the Chamber who continue to cheerlead are burying their heads in the sand.”
“The fact is that Brexit has brought a positive focus to the democratic logic of self-determination and constitutional change in Ireland. There is a way to remove the negative and enduring legacy of Brexit. Irish unity provides that option. Therefore, it is time to widen participation in the debate.”
“Minister, do you agree that the discrimination in employment and the political vetting that have been practised in this state for so long, and actively supported by some Members, have no place in today's society, and that appointment to government boards should be open to all sections of society, including such citizens as Peter Lynch?”
The complete record
Every one of 988 lines we hold for Declan Kearney, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 15 of 20.
“He also raised a question about the Irish protocol and whether it, in turn, also carried cross-cutting implications. He asked whether the legislation would impinge on the collective decision-making process relative to the Irish protocol. I think that the Member has raised that point before and perhaps he has received a response to it. The Executive deal with Brexit in a collective format. All the issues relating to withdrawal are brought to the attention of all Ministers in the Executive. We deal with them on the basis that it is an issue that requires the collective focus of all Ministers. Notwithstanding differences in the Executive in relation to withdrawal or otherwise, Brexit or otherwise, the reality is that we are where we are. We have the Irish protocol that needs to be implemented.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. He makes an entirely valid point, which is the point that I have been trying to make. I have attempted to respect the issues raised by Members in relation to timing and accelerated passage. Some have asked, "Why the rush?". The Member makes the point that, when the amendments are made to the ministerial code, they will be put to the Assembly for scrutiny and potential amendment, which further adds to the process that we are involved in to get us to the stage at which we are, in fact, on a fit-for-purpose basis, in a position to deal with a number of the planning issues that remain extant. <BR /> <BR />Matthew O'Toole expressed caveats about accelerated passage. I have already indicated that I agree that it is not the best and ideal way of doing business.”
“I thank the Member, once again, for his intervention, but he misses the point. The legislation must be passed and adopted in order for us then to make the necessary adjustments to the ministerial code. On the basis of making the adjustments to the ministerial code, when we have concluded that process, we are in a position to start to address a number of the planning issues coming through from the Department for Infrastructure.”
“If you keep interrupting me, Mr Wells, I will forget what sentence I am trying to articulate. Please. <BR /> <BR />We will end up with a situation, in 2021, where we have not advanced any of the planning issues that we hope to address.”
“When I have finished my sentence, Mr Wells, if you do not mind.”
“There is a process that we are following, which is an attempt to try to get things expedited but mindful of the point that there are a number of steps that need to be taken. The danger in not proceeding with accelerated passage is that the can is kicked up the road until later in the year and we are left with the prospect, in 2021, of only then having the ability to deal —.”
“I have already touched on this matter, but he raised the issue of the ministerial code, and I can assure him that, yes, it will be updated. However, on his question as to whether planning issues can proceed prior to the amendment of the ministerial code, the answer to that is no. The ministerial code must be adjusted in order for the planning issues to proceed. <BR /> <BR />When we factor in time frames and timescales to how we are trying to do our business here, there is a process that we are following”
“<BR /> <BR />That takes me to Mr Muir's contribution, during which he pointed out that almost 40 applications are sitting parked with the Department for Infrastructure at this point, along with so many other elements of government that we have not had the capacity or the ability to address as a result of everything that has impacted us over the last four to five months. Mr Muir pointed out that we cannot afford to wait any longer on this matter. He made the point, echoing what was said by earlier contributors, that this legislation goes back to pre-Buick and post-St Andrews Agreement. I agree with him that it strikes the correct balance between the role of Ministers and the collective and collegiate basis of how the Executive should do their business.”
“<BR /> <BR />As I have said already and said previously, using accelerated passage is not the ideal way of doing government, but it is the mechanism that exists to assist government in trying to navigate and manoeuvre circumstances created as a result of unintended consequences, and, for that reason, accelerated passage was commended, with a view to ensuring that the legislative basis existed, and specifically to avoid a situation where planning issues would drift into next year.”
“She made the point that it was essential that legal clarity was obtained and the Executive discussed that matter, and, in turn, the Executive commissioned the legal opinion that was required in order to try to position ourselves to have the clarity and the ability to address planning issues with the Minister for Infrastructure. As Mr Muir pointed out, there were 38 applications in her in tray, some of them obviously being of greater imminence and significance.”
“I say that with respect to the fact that every Member elected to the Assembly, on the basis that they are constituency representatives, has also been absorbed with the scale of demand arising from COVID-19. <BR /> <BR />It has only been in recent weeks that, with the imminence of the transition period for Brexit coming to a conclusion — I refer back to a point made by Mr O'Toole — the Executive have managed to start to address the scale and complexity of issues relating to withdrawal from Europe; five months before the transition period concludes. <BR /> <BR />The Minister for Infrastructure brought this matter to the Executive a couple of months ago as an issue that she believed required attention for remedy.”
“I think that we have to set all of this into the context of the last period of months. Our power-sharing Executive was re-established in the second week of January, and we are now at the end of July. Within a matter of weeks, the new Executive, the new power-sharing Government, were engulfed with the scale of managing COVID-19. The consequence of that was that 'New Decade, New Approach' and all the provisions in that document, to which every party in the Chamber made a contribution, has effectively been placed on ice. We have not yet had the space to design a Programme for Government. That also has been effectively placed on ice. The existential catastrophe of COVID-19 has effectively absorbed the focus and the attention on a whole-of-government basis.”
“I thank the Member for that intervention. At no stage did I imply that I was concerned or frustrated about the number of interventions at all, I simply suggested that it might be helpful to be brief in order that I could finish making my remarks in response to Mr Beattie. However, he is absolutely right: there is a requirement for us to use every opportunity in the process of the legislation's passage to subject issues to the appropriate scrutiny and debate. This is an opportunity for additional scrutiny, and I absolutely agree with him on that point. <BR /> <BR />Returning to Doug Beattie, he and Steve Aiken raised the issue of timing and the fact that we are using accelerated passage, and, to that extent, this point refers back to one of the elements of the last intervention.”
“Just let me finish, please. <BR /> <BR />It is, in the context of this discussion and with regard to a Minister's adherence to the ministerial code, for Ministers to make their assessment of what is deemed controversial and significant. The First Minister and deputy First Minister will determine whether an issue is significant and they will retain, in the context of the legislation, the capacity and the prerogative to call matters in.”
“We will need to amend the functions in the Executive to ensure that that is reflected in the statutory functions.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention and I thank him for taking what I have said at face value. I can reassure him and his party that it is my resolve and intent, and that of my party, to seek to continue to work in a collegiate way with other members of the Executive, including his party colleague, the Minister of Health. <BR /> <BR />I intended to address the ministerial code later in my remarks. Yes, there are matters pertaining to the ministerial code and, yes, the ministerial code will be required to be amended. The ministerial code cannot be amended until the legislation completes its passage. An example of how we will address the ministerial code and the required amendment, consequential to the passage of the legislation, relates, for example, to functions.”
“On that point, I seek to reassure him that with the commitment of all the Ministers and all five parties with seats at the Executive table, I believe that power-sharing works. <BR /> <BR />Making our power-sharing Government work is not so much about whether we pass the legislation or not — although I believe that it will have an enabling function — but about the will and the spirit that Executive members bring to the Executive table to try to map out a better future for our society. It is on that basis, on many occasions over recent months, that the Minister from the Ulster Unionist Party has stated that he appreciates the level of collegiality, support and assistance — from all other Executive Ministers, within and outside Executive meetings — that has been provided to him in his important work in leading the fightback against COVID-19.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention, and, on that point, we will depart. I am pleased to be a member of our power-sharing Government. My party is pleased to be sharing power with other parties. Clearly, the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party has some qualification, reservation or doubt about the issue of power-sharing and the logic for our having power-sharing and doing politics on a consociational basis. I hope that it does not telegraph an intention on behalf of his party in maintaining the collegiality of our power-sharing Government. <BR /> <BR />To return to Mr Beattie's comments, he said that, in his view, it is bad legislation. He expressed a concern that, if the Bill is passed, it will create a situation where the Executive and their business may become more combative.”
“Certainly, I can. With respect to the confidentiality of Executive business — I would not betray any such confidences — I have no record of any discord or rancour within the Executive relating to discussions on these matters.”
“I know that Mr Beattie will accept my response in the fraternal matter in which it is intended, but I remind him that our power-sharing Executive and Government are made up of five parties of which his party is one. All Ministers supported the Bill as it proceeded through the Executive and all Ministers had sight of the advice that was provided to the Executive on how to deal with the issues that are required to be remedied.”
“He expressed offence at some of the comments that were made yesterday, which he felt were personalised. He suggested that the Bill was a carve-up between the two largest parties in our Assembly.”
“He began by reminding us of the multifaceted nature of the emergency and the need for us to reboot our economy by finding stimulus measures, particularly large-scale capital infrastructure projects, which we hope will have the desired effect of creating much-needed and new employment as we move through the torrid times that we have been living through. He believes, as I indicated earlier, that the legislation will help the Executive to work better, but he emphasised the importance of action and of the Executive being seen to deliver for the benefit of wider society. On that basis, he indicated his willingness to support the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Doug Beattie spoke next. I want to affirm his opening remarks. He noted the quality of yesterday's debate, to which he made a very substantial contribution.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. The point that I made was that Mr Stalford had opined that we had subjected the legislation to substantive scrutiny, notwithstanding the fact that we are operating with a system of accelerated passage. I remind the Member that we are all representatives. We are all constituency MLAs and all have a duty, not only to be accountable to our constituents but to inform them. Given the fact that the legislation has been in the making for weeks, we have all, individually, collectively and as parties, had ample opportunity to apprise our constituents of the pending legislation. <BR /> <BR />Colin McGrath spoke next.”
“Mr Stalford also observed that all the relevant arguments have been made and that, in his view, scrutiny has been achieved. <BR /> <BR />Pat Sheehan spoke next. He began by highlighting the consequential legal hazards that were created as a result of the Buick ruling. In his view, the Bill recalibrates the legislation, and I agree with him in that respect. However, as many other Members on both sides of the debate said today, particularly Mr Beattie, there are limitations to accelerated passage. He noted the limitations of that. In the circumstances that we face, it is a necessary position to adopt.”
“<BR /> <BR />Christopher Stalford commenced the debate and stated that the legislation that has been brought before the House is consistent with the St Andrews Agreement. He affirmed the legal opinion that has been received. I agree with you that Members are entitled to challenge and critique; that is the challenge function of the Assembly. I also agree that the legislation provides clarity and has the potential — I believe that it will be seized as potential — to increase collaboration in our five-party, power-sharing Executive. I would go further. The legislation will be enabling in that respect, and if all five parties who have seats at the Executive table — most of them are represented in the Chamber today — take that opportunity in a positive, constructive way, the legislation can assist in that process.”
“I thank the Member for that intervention. I will take it at face value that it was a genuine question, and I was intending to revisit those issues as I respond to his intervention and those of other Members who have spoken during the debate. <BR /> <BR />I thank all Members who have taken the opportunity to speak. Gabhaim buíochas leis na Comhaltaí ar fad a ghlac páirt sa díospóireacht seo. I am grateful to you all, regardless of what position you took in relation to the issue, for your contribution. A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, déanfaidh mé léargas ar an méid a dúirt Comhaltaí. I will take this opportunity to briefly address a number of comments that were made by Members during the debate.”
“If you just let me finish my sentence. It will aid our economic recovery from the midst of the health emergency caused by COVID-19.”
“In so doing, it will help to enable the appropriate decision-making by the Minister for Infrastructure on planning applications that, as others have pointed out, will aid our economic recovery from the midst of the health emergency caused by —.”
“I acknowledge and thank the Assembly for its willingness to consider the Bill by accelerated passage. It is certainly not the preference of the joint heads of government to progress legislation in this way. However, due to the urgency of the need for decisions on planning applications in particular, it has been necessary to bring the Bill forward in a much faster time than would be ideal or desirable. Even in that short timescale, a number of important issues have been debated, and Members have been given the opportunity to voice both concern and support. <BR /> <BR />This final debate will bring to a close the Assembly's consideration of the Bill, which remains unamended following yesterday's proceedings.”
“However, there is a caveat to be entered under clause 1(8), which qualifies section 20(3) of the Act in respect of cross-cutting matters to provide that a Minister is not required to have recourse to the Executive Committee unless a matter affects the exercise of one or more other Ministers "more than incidentally". I hope that that provides some clarification to the Member.”
“to take certain decisions under the Planning Act:”
“Thank you, Mr Temporary Speaker. It is necessary to clarify the circumstances in which a Minister is required to refer a matter to the Executive, where that matter may be cross-cutting, significant or controversial. However, I must add that that does not affect the integrity of the planning process or the nature or quality of the decisions that would be taken under it. It is about who takes the decisions. <BR /> <BR />In response to the Member's point, clause 1(4) inserts a new provision at section 20(7) of the NI Act. That permits:”
“The Executive will therefore be monitoring the impact of all the relaxations very carefully. We are prepared to reintroduce restrictions if that is considered necessary in order to control the virus, but our focus needs to be on ensuring that that does not happen. Vigilance and caution will continue to be essential as we move through the coming weeks. All the practical advice continues to apply. Fanaigí ar shiúl ó chéile. Nígí bhur lámha. Keep your distance, and wash your hands well and often. A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, molaim an rún agus na rialacha don Tionól. I commend the regulations to the Assembly.”
“11) regulations, which were made on 9 July. Members will have an opportunity to debate those measures in due course. We are now at an important point in the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. We are beginning to look beyond the response phase towards the actions that will be needed to secure a robust and sustainable recovery, to rebuild public services and for us to seek to restore more normal ways of living. <BR /> <BR />Is é dúshlán atá romhainn anois ná teacht ar na bealaí agus na modhanna chun é sin a bhaint amach le go mbeadh muid ábalta ruaig eile den aicíd mharfach seo a bhainistiú más gá. The challenge facing us now is to find the ways and means to achieve that whilst managing the risk of a second wave of this deadly virus, were that to transpire.”
“Those included the reopening of cinemas, bingo halls, amusement arcades, indoor fitness suites, indoor and outdoor gyms, and playgrounds from 10 July; a return to competitive sporting events without spectators, both at grassroots and professional level, which extends to include horse racing and equestrian competitions, from 11 July; the reopening of libraries from 16 July; the reopening of indoor leisure centres or facilities but not swimming pools from 17 July; and the resumption of indoor wedding, baptism and civil partnership ceremonies, with numbers to be determined by the venue on a risk-assessed basis. The Executive also agreed that the wearing of face coverings on public transport would become mandatory from 10 July, except for people for whom an exemption applies. <BR /> <BR />Those changes were given effect in the amendment (No.”
“<BR /> <BR />All those relaxations were agreed on the basis of the most up to date medical and scientific advice. Crucially, they were adopted with the stipulation that all relevant public guidance and mitigating measures be implemented in advance of those sectors reopening. <BR /> <BR />I will now take the opportunity to note some of the other changes that have been agreed since the amendment regulations being debated today were laid. On Thursday 9 July, the Executive agreed a range of other measures.”
“Regrettably, other places have not experienced our relative progress to date. <BR /> <BR />D’éirigh leis na rialacha agus le cur chuige an Fheidmeannais maidir leis na srianta a mhaolú agus tá siad ag obair de réir a chéile. The regulations and the Executive's approach to easing restrictions have worked and are continuing to work. Sábháladh beatha. Lives have been saved. Our health and social care systems have not been overwhelmed. Businesses are beginning to reopen and services are returning. Our citizens for the first time in a long time are beginning to enjoy being able to do more, but it is important to acknowledge that the battle against COVID-19 is far from over. We cannot afford to drop our guard for a moment when it comes to keeping people safe.”
“As we have discussed in the past, we have come a long way from when the coronavirus restriction regulations were first laid. We have seen great progress as a result of everyone's concerted efforts in the intervening period.”
“Thirdly, technical amendments have been made to regulations 3 and 6 to correct the numbering of sub-paragraphs and to clarify that beer gardens can sell and serve alcohol without food. <BR /> <BR />These relaxations are aimed at boosting well-being and allowing our citizens to re-engage with our tourism, cultural and service infrastructure. They will assist in the restart of the economy by helping to protect the jobs of those who work in those sectors and their wider supply chains, and, importantly, will contribute towards an increased sense of normality. <BR /> <BR />As I explained before, the Executive will not be rushed into making decisions simply as a result of artificial deadlines or to match decisions taking place in other jurisdictions.”
“<BR /> <BR />Regulations 5, 6(a) and 6(b) are also amended to permit the reopening of massage, tattooing and piercing businesses from 6 July, and to permit the reopening of spas from 6 July, but not insofar as they provide services relating to water or steam. <BR /> <BR />Regulations 5, 6(a) and 6(b) are further amended to permit the restricted opening of restaurants and bars in registered clubs from 3 July. <BR /> <BR />Some changes have also been made for reasons of consistency and clarity. First, the reference in regulation 5 to who might attend a funeral has been removed, now that the number of people permitted to gather outside has been increased. Secondly, a change has been made to regulation 6 to clarify that summer schools and schemes can operate.”
“I am sure that we would all welcome that. It means that, for the first time in many months, our citizens have the opportunity to meet with their friends and family and share time together. <BR /> <BR />Secondly, amendment No 10 contained a set of substantive amendments that reflect decisions taken by the Executive on 2 July. Those decisions were taken after careful consideration of the available scientific and medical advice, and they are line with the timetable of indicative dates previously published by the Executive in order to facilitate the reopening of businesses and other services. The amendments include that regulation 5 on restrictions on movements and regulations 6(a) and 6(b) on restrictions on gatherings are amended to permit the reopening of museums, galleries and betting shops from 3 July.”
“There are two motions before the Assembly today, and with your permission I will address both of those in my remarks. I will begin by outlining the changes brought about by these regulations and the reasons behind the Executive's decisions. <BR /> <BR />First, amendment No 9 contained only one substantive amendment. Regulations 6, 6(a) and 6(b), which place restrictions on gatherings, are amended to allow for gatherings of up to 30 people in public places and outdoors. Allowing up to 30 people who are not members of the same household to meet together outdoors is consistent with step 3 of Executive's approach to decision-making. The Executive considered that this relaxation would offer benefits in terms of personal well-being, the promotion of responsible social interaction and a sense of a gradual return to normality.”
“Éirím leis an rún a chur chun cinn. I beg to move”
“<BR /> <BR />We need bold representation and leadership from everyone in civic and political life; it is not simply a matter for the Executive and for the Chamber to show that. We need to see strong positions taken against racism, sectarianism and all forms of intolerance, regardless of the source. That needs to be reflected in school life, wider community life, the workplace and, of course, from political leaders. I am confident that I and colleagues in the Executive and in our power-sharing Government are absolutely committed to providing that type of leadership.”
“<BR /> <BR />Tackling and confronting the scourge of sectarianism and racism in our society in all its manifestations is a challenge facing us all. It will require a cross-cutting, collective, societal approach, so, in so many ways, it requires a whole-of-government and whole-of-society strategic response. That, in turn, underlines the importance of the NDNA commitment that will, in a very explicit way, see racism and sectarianism addressed in a legal expression, setting those issues into legislation as hate crime. It also provides us with the option of all our representatives committing to an anti-sectarian pledge. That is a very important, practical, political, concrete, symbolic position for us to take.”
“Yes, but the starting point is to reference our Together: Building a United Community strategy. For the Member's information, that outlines a vision of a united community that is based on equality of opportunity, the desirability of good relations and reconciliation but where everyone can live, learn, work and socialise together free from prejudice, hate and intolerance. I am sure that all Members in the Chamber this afternoon will agree that that is not the lived experience of so many in our society, where there is still far too much direct and indirect discrimination that citizens experience on the basis of their religious beliefs, their sexual orientation, their ethnicity or their colour. In this day and age, that is a reality that we need to try to eradicate.”
“We are ensuring that the crisis fund, currently totalling £100,000, continues to operate, particularly to help the most marginalised, including our refugees and our asylum seeker population. <BR /> <BR />There is a wide range of good relations funding that, depending on eligibility, may be accessed by minority ethnic groups and projects. They include the central good relations fund, which is worth £2·75 million; the district council good relations programme, worth £3 million; and the Peace IV programme, for which the Executive Office is the accountable Department. The building positive relations actions have been allocated approximately €64 million. Through those programmes, we are able to help many groups and projects achieve their goals to the benefit of our flourishing minority ethnic community and to enrich our broader shared society.”
“Funding from the minority ethnic development fund (MEDF), the crisis fund, good relations interventions and Urban Villages has been used to promote good relations and to address both the long-term and emerging needs of our local minority ethnic communities. Since its establishment in 2002, the MEDF has enabled hundreds of projects and groups to support minority ethnic people. It is worth around £1·2 million per annum. This year, to prevent any disruption to services during COVID-19, we extended that funding to current core-funded MEDF recipients for a further 12 months commencing on 1 April 2020. That was designed to give stability to the sector, and it has enabled organisations to continue to support minority ethnic people at a time when they need it most.”
“It is important that, when this work is brought forward, it is taken in context with the likely cross-cutting issues that will arise for other Departments, but, importantly, given the extensive remit of the commission, it is likely that the actions that flow from it will also dovetail with the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression. Therefore, I hope that it will act as a platform to inform that piece of work, going forward. I hope that information is useful to the Member.”
“The Member is correct. That work was commissioned in 2016, and then, in December 2018, the commission decided to scale back its meetings, while awaiting a changed political context. We now have an indication from the commission that it is bringing forward all of its recommendations. The expectation is that that will be with the Executive Office before the end of this month, and it will be brought to the attention of the First and deputy First Ministers for consideration at that time. <BR /> <BR />You will be aware that there was extensive community engagement in relation to this work. Twelve public meetings were held across the region. It is believed that there were up to 1,000 people involved in sharing their views on all the issues. They are contentious issues and are very challenging.”