Linda Dillon
Mid Ulster · Sinn Féin · Northern Ireland
“It is important to have that acknowledgement for the sake of history — so that the generations who come after us will understand what happened to you and what you went through. It is also important for our present and future: we must make sure that what happened to those women, girls and children never happens again.”
“I begin by offering the apologies of my colleague Carál Ní Chuilín, who cannot be here today owing to ill health. Carál has been very much invested in the work on the legislation. The Bill is very important to her, given the work that she does in the Assembly and the people with whom she has personally worked and engaged over many years.”
“My colleague Áine is the Member who probably comes closest to having a true understanding of what you have had to live with and endure, and continue to live with and endure, because it has affected, and will affect, you all your life, and we know that those effects are transgenerational. I acknowledge that.”
“We can never allow that to happen. <BR /> <BR />You showed bravery by speaking up. You spoke up, yes, so that people would know what had happened to you, but you also spoke up so that it would not happen to others.”
“Some lived to see the beginning of the campaign but not the Bill getting to this stage. Many did not even see the beginning of the campaign and did not believe that, in their lifetime — or anyone else's lifetime, for that matter — there would be an acknowledgement of what happened to them.”
“I apologise for not being in the House from the beginning of the statement and thank you for your latitude on that. <BR /> <BR />Thank you, Minister. You have outlined some of the benefits that Waterways Ireland ownership can bring to waterways and local communities.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,578 lines we hold for Linda Dillon, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 30 of 32.
“I think that some leeway was given to others.”
“— who highlighted to me the need for nurture in his school —.”
“Sorry. We need to have a proper strategic approach to ensure that we implement good policy that reduces the risk of people ending up in the criminal justice system in the first place. <BR /> <BR />I just want to outline one case that was brought to me recently by a school principal —”
“<BR /> <BR />When a violent crime is committed, the punishment must fit the crime — on that, I agree with many Members across the House — particularly where there is loss of life or serious physical or psychological injury. Subsequent sentencing should reflect the seriousness of the crime: that is what families and society as a whole expect. However, nothing can replace the benefit of prevention. Families who have lost a loved one or have been victims of violent crime can attest to that. We also need to ensure that there is a focus on rehabilitation, as that is the only way to tackle reoffending effectively. The Minister has referred to that.”
“The Department for Communities can play a part by addressing deprivation and housing need. DAERA has a role, particularly on rural crime and isolation, which can make people more vulnerable to being the victim of crime. The Minister for the Economy, as part of her portfolio, needs to look at where we can provide skills, training and employment in areas of high deprivation, and, as this will have to be financed, the Minister of Finance has an important role to play in any strategic approach to dealing with the root causes. Those are the reasons that this cannot simply be a matter for Justice and Health. All Departments have their role to play. We need to focus on addressing the root causes.”
“That is why we tabled our amendment. <BR /> <BR />To address root causes, all Departments need to work together. As we well know, people who end up in the criminal justice system overwhelmingly have issues with mental health and with substance and alcohol misuse and come from the areas of highest deprivation. There is some good collaborative working going on in some areas, particularly between Health and Justice, specifically on prisons and the PSNI. Whilst that is welcome, as we have already outlined, by the time the individual has come into contact with the criminal justice system, we have failed them. <BR /> <BR />The Education and Communities Departments have their role to play, particularly through the Youth Service but also in our school system, in identifying where children are at risk.”
“She is absolutely right: if people have reached the judicial system, we have failed them in every possible way. That is the essence of the motion. I thank our colleagues in the SDLP for tabling the motion. <BR /> <BR />I place on record my thanks to Alan Chambers for outlining his personal story; I know that that is not easy to do. I understand that being a victim of this type of crime has a lasting impact, and he is to be commended for bringing that to the House's attention today. <BR /> <BR />Our amendment is set in the context of prevention and early intervention. That is essential in order to reduce violent crime, whether it is domestic and sexual violence or attacks on our elderly or on those who are vulnerable. Those who are vulnerable are the victims of crime and, as well, those who are vulnerable are the perpetrators of crime.”
“My mother was a healthcare assistant in Daisy Hill Hospital, and she was badly injured one night by a patient who injured her accidentally. She was encouraged to make a statement against that individual, but she said, "That gentleman is extremely ill. He did not intend to injure me, and, therefore, I do not feel that any kind of sentence or judicial process would be beneficial to anybody in this case". That goes back to what Christopher Stalford said, and it is the reason why we cannot support the DUP amendment. Whilst, to be fair, in essence, it is a good enough amendment, it probably has too much focus on the judicial process and not enough on tackling the root causes. <BR /> <BR />There is little that Claire Sugden said that I do not agree with.”
“I begin by thanking the Minister for her comments. I will not go over everything that everyone said, but I support the motion and ask Members to support amendment No 2. <BR /> <BR />Dolores Kelly outlined some of the issues around the Gillen review, and that is the greatest example of the need for cross-departmental collaboration. Gillen, in his recommendations, touched on every Department. <BR /> <BR />Doug Beattie argued for a victims' commissioner, and the Minister has already responded to that suggestion. Nobody is necessarily opposed to that, but you have to decide whether it is the best use of resources. <BR /> <BR />Paul Frew commented on attacks on healthcare staff. I absolutely agree with him, but it goes back to the question of what is the root cause.”
“Given the conversations that we have had today about the Budget, will the Minister confirm that, where pilot schemes are being run with ministerial colleagues, he will look at how those schemes will be funded, at the point of implementation, in future? Those pilot schemes are excellent, but are we wasting money running them when we have no plans for funding them, going forward?”
“I raised this in this morning's debate, and you will have heard that the British Government do need to bear the responsibility for the cost of this. It is their legislation. It is legislation that ignored much of the advice given to them by the Victims' Commissioner and all of the other victims' groups and responses and consultations. Can you confirm whether you think that the British Government will be forthcoming with this money and whether you have had any discussions with them on additional moneys in relation to the other legacy mechanisms, given that there is an acknowledgement that £150 million will not touch it?”
“Does the Member agree that that just proves the point that this was British Tory policy and nothing to do with not having the money to invest here?”
“Thank you. I appreciate you giving way. Will you not agree with me that the victims' pension legislation was brought forward by the British Government, that the guidelines were given by the British Government and that the British Government should, therefore, fund it? They expect the Executive to fund it and the Executive to implement it even though they had absolutely no say in how the legislation was arrived at.”
“I appreciate the Member taking the intervention. On that point, I am glad that the Member across the way, my colleague on the Justice Committee, has finally come to the realisation of the need to fund our public servants, because, in the previous Executive, the Education Minister would not give the teachers even a 1% pay rise because they had the nerve to say that it was not enough. Going forward, we need to ensure that that same Education Minister addresses teachers' pay, because it is a massive issue. Those people give a lot of goodwill. They work, as you said about the health workers, over and above their hours and go way beyond what is expected of them, and it is time that they were paid for that.”
“Does the Minister agree that it is not only the institutions that are responsible for making an input to the HIA redress scheme? The British Government were the institution in charge here for a number of years. They were responsible for those children, and they let them down. They also need to pay up.”
“I thank the Member for taking the intervention. I am sure that she will agree with me that, even where indigenous businesses have worked really hard to keep their businesses, such as in areas like my constituency of Mid Ulster, the infrastructure has not been put in place to support them. That needs to be addressed, because we are too focused on foreign direct investment.”
“Minister, what conversations have you had with the British Government about that? I am sure that you are well aware — we can make as much politics out of this as we want, or we can be real about it — that the agri-food sector is genuinely concerned about what will happen with food quality. What discussions have you had with the British Government to ensure that regulations do not break with EU regulations on food quality?”
“Do you think that the gaps are more in the process or in the legislation? In other words, do we need further legislation or will the process be enough to deal with the outstanding issues?”
“My question has been partly answered. I wish the Minister well in her post, and I am sure that I will work closely with her in my role as Deputy Chair. <BR /> <BR />You outlined that your Department was working towards addressing some of the Gillen recommendations.”
“I wish the Minister well at her first Question Time. I am happy to hear the acknowledgement of social isolation. I represent Mid Ulster, which is a very rural constituency. It stretches the whole way from Swatragh to Fivemiletown, so it covers a massive area. A lot of people in the area are very socially isolated. In the index of over 500 areas with a lack of services, Pomeroy comes eighth. <BR /> <BR />Will the Minister give a commitment that she will try to roll back from some of the budget cuts for rural transport? The cuts really do create massive issues in accessing services.”
“I support the motion. Service animals play an invaluable role, as has already been outlined, and should be protected in law from being attacked or abused when carrying out their duties. I am sure that everyone will agree that attacks on these or any other animals are abhorrent. There is no doubt that the loophole in the legislation needs to be addressed, so I call on the Minister to bring forward legislation through his Department to address that and to ensure that these animals are protected in law.”
“My question on the regional trauma network is similar to Mike Nesbitt's question. We have been leading a number of conversations with TEO and the Department of Health, and we understood from the last meeting that, as part of the Stormont House mechanisms, there was some movement with the regional trauma network not being exclusively for those who were injured by the conflict but, first and foremost, for those who were injured by the conflict. Will the First Minister confirm whether this is how we are moving forward?”
“Will the First Minister also confirm where exactly the money is coming from? That is a concern that has come to me from the victims' sector. Whilst we have been given guarantees that it will happen and reassurances that the money is there, we have no detail of where it is coming from.”
“I would like to know what the approach of the House will be in relation to EU funding and what the approach will be to going to the British Government, not with a begging bowl but telling them what they owe us here. They owe us in terms of New Decade, New Approach as well. The nonsense of trying to cover for the British Government's attempt to remove themselves from their responsibilities should stop here and now. We, as a House, need to ensure that all of the funding remains in place. Our voluntary and community sector and our rural communities will be absolutely decimated. We have a responsibility to all of those people and sectors across our constituencies. I ask for the support of the House in ensuring that the funding that will be lost to this place through this Brexit will be replaced by the British Government.”
“We are talking about business and the agri-food sector, which is extremely important. Frankly, the comments from the previous Member to speak were absolutely disgusting, particularly the manner in which he referred to the whole sector. I held many meetings with that sector when the vote was first taken. The point that they made was that we could have no divergence from EU rules, because what really gives us an advantage here in the agri-food sector is the quality of our food. We will never be able to produce the quantity, but we have high-quality food. They made that very clear at that time, and your remarks are quite shameful.”
“On Friday, I visited a project in Pomeroy that had availed itself of £5 million of EU funding. That project is about reconciliation; it is about bringing the two parts of our community together. My concern is this: who will replace that funding? Given some of the comments from Members in the Chamber about us, in the wake of the New Decade, New Approach deal, going to the British Government with a begging bowl, do they think that we should not ask the British Government to replace that EU funding? I know the difference that EU funding has made in my constituency, and I am certain that there is not one Member who would not be able to say that it has made a massive difference in their constituency. <BR /> <BR />Where is the money coming from? I have not heard any talk about that.”
“They, like the rest of us, are extremely sceptical about any commitments that this British Government make, so, while I welcome the payments for this year, it is vital to our economy here, in which the farming sector plays such an important role, that the British Government commit to certainty of payment well into the future and that the Assembly play its part in the legislation that makes it happen. The Assembly will also play an important role in making sure that future payments are designed in a fair and equitable manner and that the application process and enforcement process meet the needs of our local industry.”
“Whilst they may well be a priority for this devolved Assembly, I did not believe that farmers here would be a priority for any British Government. <BR /> <BR />Farmers absolutely deserve certainty around future payments. The British Government have publicly stated that they are committed to making the payments over the five-year period of their Parliament. Farmers and the agriculture sector as a whole will, no doubt, have witnessed the same British Government give a financial commitment to our public services here in the North only a few short weeks ago in the New Decade, New Approach deal, only to renege on it immediately.”
“It is vital for the sustainability of our rural communities, including farmers in my constituency of Mid Ulster, which is a large, rural constituency. <BR /> <BR />I forgot, at the beginning of my remarks, to congratulate you, Minister Poots, on your new position. Edwin was on the AERA Committee when I was its Chair, and we had many's the discussion around Brexit, I can assure you. In the wake of the referendum in 2016, I met many across the sector. Farmers made it clear that the promises from those trying to sell the benefits of Brexit needed to be adhered to and that they needed guarantees around payments. I was honest with them and told them that there were no guarantees. That is what Brexit removed from them: any guarantees of payments or any other kind of support.”
“First, I want to remark on the comment made by the Member for Newry and Armagh: that this will be of comfort to farmers. I can assure him that it will be of very small comfort. Coming from a farming background and understanding well the reliance that farmers, particularly hill farmers, have on these payments, I do not think that the one-year assurance will be a massive comfort to them, to be fair. <BR /> <BR />We will support the LCM, because not to do so would mean that farmers across the North would not get their direct payments in 2020. However — it is on record — my party is opposed to Brexit. One of the many reasons for that is the potential damage and uncertainty that it will bring to the agricultural sector. Every year, over £300 million of payments comes from the EU to farmers and the agricultural sector in the North.”
“It is extremely unfortunate that we are in this position. However, I have been assured by the Finance Minister that some of the recommendations can be acted on and that he will work —”
“I hope that we can all get round a table. If there is a change of attitude and a real willingness to work towards equality and serve all the people, we will be able to move this thing forward. However, we all have to work together. There has to be a change of attitude. I take what you said tonight in the Chamber at face value and hope that you will work honestly with us to move this forward.”
“It needs to be made clear that this is not about compensation, it is about allowing those people to get access to services that they may not otherwise be able to get access to. It is an acknowledgement that a lot of them did not get the education that they should have and that they suffered hardship in adulthood because of things that happened to them as children. <BR /> <BR />The motion outlines the fact that the current political situation may delay the implementation of the recommendations. Whilst it cannot be denied that there is a knock-on effect of there being no Executive Office, which is extremely regrettable, no one tried harder to ensure that the political institutions remained in place and delivered for the people than Sinn Féin. We will work day and night. I hope that Edwin means what he said in the Chamber tonight.”
“<BR /> <BR />The system failed the children — and their families, because these children grew up and had families. The impact was not just on the individual; it was on their families. It is generational; it did not end with that one person who suffered the abuse. I am glad to see these victims and survivors being acknowledged. As you would expect, the abuse suffered by the victims and survivors left its mark on their lives; it impacted on their lives and on those of their families. I welcome that the report acknowledges that and that there are recommendations in it to address that. I also welcome the recommendation that there be financial redress for victims and survivors.”
“There probably is a failing in not recognising them. I wish to acknowledge them today, because some of their brothers, sisters and family members will still be with us. I spoke to Gerard and his sisters before I mentioned this tonight, because, as I said, it was her story and her children. They understand the impact it had on her throughout her life. It is very personal to a family, and I would not have spoken about her tonight without her children's permission. Whilst they were very emotional, they said, "Our mummy did nothing wrong. She has nothing to be ashamed of". This needs to be exposed and talked about. Thank goodness for Anthony Hart's report. All the things that happened to these children are being exposed and talked about.”
“I do not think that very many parents would do to children what was done to these children in these institutions. I certainly hope not. <BR /> <BR />Speaking as someone who has a close personal connection to the issue, I have some understanding of what it means to the victims and survivors. My husband's mummy, Patsy, who I was extremely close to, suffered at the hands of nuns in one of these institutions — Nazareth House in Belfast — from the ages of four to eight. I will not go into the details of the story because it is her story, not mine, and she is no longer with us, but I am well aware of how she and her three sisters suffered. In fact, one of them died there and did not make it out. I feel that there needs to be some acknowledgment also of those who never made it out of these institutions and died within them.”
“First, I would like to acknowledge that some of the victims and survivors are with us tonight. They have had a long wait because this debate was to happen a lot earlier in the day, but it is very short in comparison with the wait they had for the report and the acknowledgement. <BR /> <BR />I was at the launch of the report on Friday. The feeling, when I came out and spoke to people, was that the important thing for them was the acknowledgment. It was the recognition that, as has been said by other Members, they were the innocent victims. They had not done anything wrong. Finally, there was some acknowledgement that there were people who did do wrong, and did it to them. It was done by the very people who were supposed to care for them and protect them as a parent would.”
“I will reiterate what Mr Kelly said: it is simply about equality. It is simply about everybody having the same access to services. If we are to take one group over and above another, we have to look at it. I do not pretend to be fully briefed on all the ins and outs of this, but we have to look at it on the basis of equality.”
“I will give way in a moment. <BR /> <BR />We need to give help to everybody on the same level. I agree with Naomi Long that equality does not mean giving equal treatment to everybody; I absolutely accept that. We need to look at targeted need, but people who suffer mental ill health suffer it regardless of why. It is regardless of whether it is trauma from something they have seen or something they have done or whether they have had an imbalance from the day they were born. All those people need to be able to access the same help and the same services. They need to be equally accessible to everybody who has the same difficulties. I understand where a number of people in the House are coming from today, but we need to give equal treatment.”
“My background is working in a Sinn Féin advice centre, where I helped people to access benefits. I helped everybody. I never asked anybody who came through the door what their background was. I did not ask them if they were in the armed forces or were a soldier, a combatant, an IRA volunteer, the family of a killed IRA volunteer or had no connection to politics or any organisation whatever. I just helped everybody who came in through the door. That is where we need to focus.”
“I do not intend to speak for very long on the motion. Many of the points that I would have made have already been made. We will oppose the motion because of the equality issue, and that is given all of what has been said by other Members in the Chamber today, as well as what Mr McCann has just said. Whilst I fully accept that there are soldiers who fought in wars that they may or may not have agreed with and that it is Governments and not armies that decide to go to war, I have to say that there are people here in the same situation who have been injured, bereaved or suffered trauma through the Troubles and through nothing to do with the Troubles. I think that everybody should be treated equally and on the same basis. <BR /> <BR />Mr Allen said that there were organisations there to help people to access benefits, and that is only right.”
“Thank you very much for taking the intervention. I have heard enough from across the Chamber, and particularly from you, Mr McPhillips, trying to say that somebody on these Benches is guilty of violating human rights. If you have any evidence that I have violated anybody's human rights, I think that the good people of Mid Ulster would like to know about it, given that they elected me. People across the Chamber have used this issue to cause insult to Members sitting on these Benches. There is no call for it.”
“Will the Member update us on what the cost would be to the Assembly to increase the connection capacity?”
“What more does the Minister believe can be done to help reassure our migrant and foreign national communities that they are welcome in our communities?”
“Minister, if what you outline is the case, is it not fair for the Ministers to share that information with their Committees?”
“The meeting noted that measures are being introduced to deal with market difficulties. Will the Minister tell us when we will know what is happening with the €4·8 million aid package and whether she is minded to match-fund it, as other regions are doing?”
“Farm businesses cannot forward-plan in the current climate of uncertainty and in an information vacuum. The Minister also needs to review the Going for Growth strategy in the light of the EU result. We have to look again at how other markets will be targeted. There are also other issues such as labelling. All this was raised with me when I met stakeholders, not least the Agri-Food Strategy Board.”
“Those in the British Government who campaigned for "Leave" talked about targeting savings at the health service. I do not recall them saying that money saved by Brexit would be targeted to support farmers in the North. Our party's position on the EU referendum has been very clear. One of the reasons why we argued and continue to argue for the North to remain in the EU, in an all-island settlement or however it works itself out, is that the big losers will be our farmers, agri-food sectors and rural communities, which have not been mentioned today. More people than farmers rely on support from the EU in rural areas. <BR /> <BR />We need to be clear that the future income of farmers is very uncertain. I call on the Minister to seek assurances and to give detail on what future support might look like. We need that detail soon.”
“Farmers are being asked to apply now for funding under the farm business improvement scheme, but, in order to establish the long-term viability of any plan for their farm, these farmers need income security and we have no idea what support, if any, will be given in future. I am deeply concerned about how farmers will be supported into the future, what access there will be to other markets and what tariffs might be in place. We are relying on the British Government to step up to the plate, because we will not have any say on future funding measures. <BR /> <BR />Let there be no mistake: we are all acutely aware that the Executive are already struggling in the face of Tory cuts, so there will be no excess in the Executive Budget to offer support to farmers.”
“Absolutely; that is the very point stakeholders made when I met them. <BR /> <BR />What this would mean for cross-border movement of livestock and produce is another big concern for all the sectors. Less regulation and red tape for farmers was quickly exposed as a red herring by those I met for all the reasons outlined, including concerns about the quality assurance of our food. Really what they told me is that the one thing we have going for us, as a small region, is the quality of our food and the standards it meets. <BR /> <BR />Our producers in every sector, whether arable, beef, pork, lamb or poultry, are facing significant challenges due to volatility in the market, and they rely very much on financial support.”