Sinéad Ennis
South Down · Sinn Féin · Northern Ireland
“The revelation over recent days that members of the DUP, including the Assembly Speaker, Edwin Poots, had knowledge of the exploitation of a young woman by the now convicted paedophile Jeffrey Donaldson raises serious questions for the DUP.”
“The bottom line here is that a dangerous paedophile went unchallenged and, worse still and despite clear, known red flags, was elected leader of the DUP.”
“We only have to look at Belfast Harbour's master plan, which sets out the possible significant economic impact that that can have. That includes enabling a quarter of all island-wide seaborne trade, which, in turn, creates £8·8 billion in gross value added and equates to 15·7% of the North's total annual output.”
“Instead, the focus must be on whether the agencies that have responsibility, including the environmental regulators and enforcement bodies such as the NIEA and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, are doing enough and whether they have sufficient powers to tackle such issues effectively.”
“The primary objective of the shaking up of driver licensing here in the North is to improve road safety by ensuring that young people are better equipped for driving on our roads. However, at present, many young people pass their tests and are completely priced out of driving because of the insurance rip-off that we are seeing.”
“That reality sees them borrowing from the Department, which is already in a very constrained capital budget position, as the Minister outlined. The provisions in the Bill will ensure that the accountability and oversight mechanisms provided by commissioners on the boards of ports or harbours will continue.”
The complete record
Every one of 872 lines we hold for Sinéad Ennis, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 18.
“<BR /> <BR />I agree with the accurate summary in the Justice Committee's report that, rather than looking at any individual clauses in isolation, it is important to look at the Bill as a whole. Therefore, we cannot look at amending just one section of the Bill without looking at the impact on the Bill as a whole. Although the amendment looks minor, its impact could totally flip the principles of the Bill. It will expand the scope of the Bill and put all its aspects back on the table for negotiation. That is inappropriate and will further delay legislation that has already been delayed for too long. For that reason, we will, as I said, oppose the amendment and continue to support the Bill as drafted.”
“No, I will not. Thank you. <BR /> <BR />If the last number of years have shown us anything, it is that having a stalemate on this issue will prevent claims from being settled and have a massive negative impact on injured people who are awaiting compensation. The public purse cannot afford for that to be stalled any longer. <BR /> <BR />The point of the Bill is to place the responsibility for the rate-setting process on the Government Actuary rather than on the Minister; it is a financial and actuarial process, not a political one. That will speed up the process and put it in the hands of an independent adjudicator to ensure that it is free from inappropriate interference.”
“Whether we like it or not, claimants and defendants approach the issue from a different perspective and are unlikely to agree. Therefore, to place a statutory requirement on who the Minister must consult and seek agreement with prior to amending legislation that directly impacts parties from very different perspectives and interests could lead to stalemate and potential deadlock.”
“<BR /> <BR />As the Chair said, I was surprised to see a last-minute amendment being submitted to the Bill after the Justice Committee unanimously supported all of its provisions as they are currently drafted. The Committee did not have time to scrutinise or fully discuss the proposed amendment nor did it have time to call witnesses or seek evidence on it. That is not a good way of doing business, and, whilst I do not doubt the Member's sincerity in their reasons for tabling the amendment or doubt that it has been tabled in good faith, it is ill-thought-out and could have wider implications than it would first appear to have. <BR /> <BR />As the Justice Committee heard from a wide variety of people involved in the personal injury claims process, it became obvious that a clearly agreed way forward would not be achieved.”
“We considered whether the responsibility for setting the rate should fall to the Justice Minister or the Government Actuary's Department; whether we needed additional statutory adjustments to the rate to prevent under-compensation, and, if so, how much; how often we should have a review of the rate to prevent us arriving at the stalemate position at which we have arrived; and a number of different issues relating to the technical make-up of the rate-setting process. <BR /> <BR />You will be glad to hear that I do not intend to speak about the technicalities of the Bill. The Minister and the Department have explained their choices throughout, and they have provided ample evidence to justify those choices. It is for that reason that we will support the Bill as drafted and oppose the amendment.”
“It became clear that setting a legislative framework for the setting of a PIDR required a number of highly subjective choices, and that it would be very difficult to get agreement from all of the interested parties on how that would be best achieved. <BR /> <BR />We considered, as the Chair outlined, whether to follow the English model or the Scottish model or adopt our own unique model.”
“That is an extremely difficult thing to do, given the variables. <BR /> <BR />Throughout the Justice Committee's scrutiny of the Bill, our focus was on achieving the 100% rule, which is that the damages that are awarded put the injured person in the same financial position as they would have been in had they not been injured, including loss of earnings and future care costs, without overcompensating or under-compensating them. <BR /> <BR />The personal injury discount rate (PIDR) is an adjustment to the damages that are awarded to a person to ensure that as close to 100% compensation as possible is achieved. During the Committee's consideration, we heard from a wide variety of individuals and organisations, including those representing defendants and claimants.”
“As a new member of the Committee who has not had the chance to address this issue before, I seek your indulgence, Deputy Speaker, to make some brief general remarks before addressing the amendment. They will put our response to the amendment in context. <BR /> <BR />As the Chair outlined, and as Members across the House have probably gathered, the Damages (Return on Investment) Bill is complex and highly technical in nature, but it will have a massive impact on those whom it affects. When a person suffers from a personal injury that is not of their doing, it is only right that they are compensated fairly by way of an award of damages. The purpose of personal injury damages is to return the victim to the same financial position as they would have been in had they not been injured.”
“A family from Burren contacted me to say that, when they were bringing their young child home from hospital by ambulance, the hospital had to contact the PSNI, which had to cordon off Milltown Street in Burren so that the ambulance could avoid the myriad potholes and sunken manhole covers in order to get the child home safely. If I were the Minister for Infrastructure, I would be utterly ashamed to preside over a situation such as that. <BR /> <BR />My constituents deserve to know what the Minister and Department will do to end that farce. When will the people of South Down be assured that the Department has got to grips with the situation? Frankly, my constituents and the people of South Down deserve so much better.”
“When I say that the Minister for Infrastructure presides over a crisis in our road network in South Down and across the Newry and Mourne area, I am not overstating the scale of the problem. The sum of £15,000 might seem like a lot of money, and it is, but in terms of what it gets you for road resurfacing, it is minuscule. It gets you about 3 feet. That is how much officials in the southern division have to spend on any resurfacing job, otherwise they would fall foul of the legal action over procurement that the Department has got itself tangled up in. That is really farcical, to be honest. <BR /> <BR />The road network in South Down and Newry is crumbling into disrepair. If anyone in the House thinks that I am exaggerating for effect, let me give you an example of the type of situation that we are dealing with.”
“We want to ensure that County Down's coastal waters are pristine all year round and not just during the designated swimming season, and I concur with colleagues that we should re-examine when the water quality testing season occurs. <BR /> <BR />Some councils have recognised the popularity as well as the health and economic benefits of investing in our bathing sites. I call on my council — Newry, Mourne and Down District Council — to make more improvements to bathing sites in our district; to invest in amenities and provide information about bathing sites; and to invest in more signage, litter collection, access points, car parks, lifeguards and, importantly, changing facilities. I call on local and central government to do more to protect, promote and enhance County Down coastal waters for the enjoyment of future generations.”
“East Coast Adventure, a company based in Warrenpoint, is opening up Carlingford lough to locals and tourists alike. It educates people and provides an outlet for people to get into our coastal waters and to enjoy our rich marine heritage. We are perfectly positioned to open up the County Down coast and to increase our tourism product, but we need investment in infrastructure and sustainable practices, and we need to ensure the quality of our seas and coastal waters. <BR /> <BR />The explosion in popularity of open-water swimming over the last few years has brought many swimmers to County Down. I am a fair-weather swimmer at best, but open-water swimming is becoming a year-round activity, and that is why we need to increase the frequency of water quality testing.”
“I argue that none of our beaches should be affected by industrial waste or sewage-related discharges. The reason why we have clean, safe beaches at all is EU directives on pollution, bathing waters and urban waste water. If it was left to the British Government, they would, no doubt, still be dumping faecal waste, sewage and other chemicals in the water, and, from what we have witnessed in the last few weeks, when we saw Brexit Britain dumping tons of raw sewage into its coastline, it seems that old habits die hard. <BR /> <BR />Improving water quality and maintaining that quality protects public health and the environment, but it also has an economic benefit. We have witnessed a marked increase in tourism along the County Down coast in recent years. That is good, and I want to see that continue in a sustainable way.”
“I am delighted that three of the North's most recent blue flag beach awards went to beaches in my constituency: Cranfield, Murlough and Tyrella. That means that those beaches scored highly on environmental education and information, water quality, environmental management, and safety and services. On water quality, the criteria state:”
“We have sea pens, basking sharks, seals, shellfish, eelgrass, many species of birds and other fish, commercial fishing industries, shipping, bathing waters, special areas of conservation, special protection areas and coastal areas of special scientific interest (ASSIs) all existing side by side.”
“While I am not a North Down constituency MLA, South Down shares a coastline with North Down, so I have a vested interest in the topic. I thank Andrew Muir for bringing this important issue for debate. I also thank the Minister for the Economy for sticking around to hear us out. <BR /> <BR />Like other Members, I genuinely feel so lucky to live, work and represent communities along the County Down coast, an area famed throughout Ireland and the world for its beauty and unique marine heritage. Murlough Bay, Dundrum Bay and Carlingford lough are home to some of the most beautiful bathing spots. Our County Down coastal waters are also home to some of the most important marine habitats and species.”
“<BR /> <BR />I can confirm that, having considered the outcome of the consultations and the additional information provided by the Department of Justice and the Committee for Finance, the Committee for Justice is content for the provisions relating to the McCloud remedy; reforms to judicial pensions; the mandatory retirement age for devolved judiciary; the appointment to and removal from sitting in retirement; and the payment of allowances, where there is currently no statutory provision, to be included in the LCM motion for the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee subsequently received correspondence from the Committee for Finance, which advised that the provisions relating to the McCloud remedy would be included in the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill. The accompanying briefing paper from the Department of Finance stated that the Bill was also expected to include additional related measures for judicial pension schemes, such as the mandatory retirement age and payment of allowances. An update provided by the Department of Justice on the next steps to deliver the McCloud remedy for the judicial and police pension scheme was also noted by the Committee on 24 June.”
“The Department indicated that an LCM was likely to be the timeliest, most reasonable and proportionate way forward, given the challenge of implementing pension reform by April 2022, and cited the cost benefits of the North being included in the larger Ministry of Justice contract arrangements. <BR /> <BR />The Department also suggested that an LCM presented the opportunity to close an existing legislative gap in relation to the recruitment and retention allowance to eligible County Court judges in the North. There is currently no statutory basis for the Department to make those payments. The Committee agreed on 25 March that it was content in principle with the proposals to proceed with the legislative changes by way of an LCM, subject to sight of the relevant Westminster legislation.”
“In addition, given that the Ministry of Justice will make provision to allow fee-paid members of the court judiciary to sit in retirement, provision will also be required to cover the removal of those members of the judiciary who are to sit in retirement, as removals from office is a devolved matter. <BR /> <BR />Having considered the information provided on the outcome of the consultations, the Committee agreed that it was content with the proposed way forward in respect of the McCloud remedy, future pensions reforms and the mandatory retirement age. <BR /> <BR />In its written briefing on the outcome of the consultations, the Department advised that, in its view, the most appropriate way to bring about the required legislative changes was by way of a legislative consent motion and set out its rationale for adopting that approach.”
“The consultation report also advised that to maintain parity with excepted court judges, provisions would be put in place so that:”
“The proposals included a career average model, with no restrictions on the number of accruing years in service; the normal pension age being linked to the state pension age; and the ability to commute part of the pension to a lump sum. <BR /> <BR />A small number of responses were received to the consultation on the mandatory retirement age. The Department advised that, on balance, respondents were in favour of raising the age to 75. A change to that age would maintain parity with the excepted court judiciary, for which the British Lord Chancellor is responsible. The Department advised that members of the devolved judiciary will only be able to continue sitting beyond 75 to finish a hearing in a part-heard case.”
“The Committee again requested additional information from the Department but was otherwise content for the consultation to take place and to consider the matter further when the results were available. <BR /> <BR />Written briefings on the outcomes of all three consultations were considered at the Committee meeting on 25 March 2021. As there were no responses to the consultation on the McCloud remedy, it was the Department's view that a formal options exercise would be the best way forward, whereby the judges affected would be given a choice to have accrued benefits within the remedy period in either the legacy pension schemes or the NI judicial pension schemes. That is in line with the approach taken by the Ministry of Justice for its judges. <BR /> <BR />There were also no responses to the consultation on future pensions reforms.”
“While it was agreed that further information should be sought from the Department of Justice on the estimated costs and that the Department of Finance should be asked whether there was an agreed approach to a remedy for the McCloud judgement across the public sector, the Committee was content for the consultations to proceed and to consider the results when available. <BR /> <BR />At that same meeting, the Committee also considered information from the Department about a consultation on proposals to raise the mandatory retirement age of devolved tribunal members and lay magistrates in the North to either 72 or 75 and to allow appointments to be extended beyond the mandatory retirement age.”
“I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Committee for Justice in this debate. The Committee first considered information from the Department of Justice on two proposed consultations relating to judicial pensions at its meeting on 8 October. The first consultation covered how to address the McCloud judgement findings that taper protections that were extended to older judges as part of the 2015 reform of pensions amounted to direct age discrimination. The second consultation covered reforms to judicial pensions and mirrored proposals made in a Ministry of Justice consultation to resurrect the previous pension scheme for eligible judges and to make some modernisations to it in relation to governance and accountability arrangements.”
“I appreciate that response. The Minister has frequently referenced the scheme that is working its way through the Department for the Economy. However, she will also know that most coach operators are not tour operators: that is a discrepancy. Her Department has managed previous schemes and is well equipped to bring forward any new support or scheme if that is needed. I urge the Minister to give the issue serious consideration because the industry needs that vital support to recover.”
“I thank the Minister for that response. Minister, in recent months, we have heard shocking accounts of lengthy waits and lack of seating and other resources in various emergency departments. Clearly, people who are waiting for lengthy periods to be seen need, at the very least, to have somewhere to sit, and they need to have access to refreshments. What steps has the Department taken to ensure that those who are waiting for lengthy times to be seen in emergency departments do not have to sit on the floor?”
“As we all know, dementia is an awfully cruel illness. As the Minister outlined, there are measures that can help. The regional dementia care pathway is one of those measures, but another is supporting those with dementia in the community. What can the Minister's Department do to support dementia-friendly communities?”
“The extension until 28 January will, however, provide us with the maximum flexibility for managing the heavy legislative programme that we have to complete and for prioritising work on particular Bills at certain times, if that is necessary. <BR /> <BR />I commend the motion to the House.”
“<BR /> <BR />At its meeting on 7 October, the Committee discussed the timetable for the Bill and agreed to seek an extension to the Committee Stage until 28 January 2022. That time frame is necessary in order to provide the Justice Committee with adequate time in which to undertake the detailed scrutiny that the Bill requires and to provide maximum flexibility for completing the Committee Stage of the other Bills that are with the Committee. Work on the Bills is also being balanced against other work that the Committee is required to complete and any issues that may arise unexpectedly. <BR /> <BR />I assure the House that the Committee will endeavour to report to the Assembly on the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Bill earlier if possible.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee intends to undertake detailed scrutiny of the Bill and will take oral evidence on the key issues that were brought to our attention in order to ensure that the legislation is as robust and effective as possible and that any current legislative gaps are fully addressed. In addition, the Committee has been advised of potential amendments that the Minister intends to table, including amendments on the rough sex defence and on widening the scope of and strengthening the current law on the abuse of positions of trust. Although not included in the Bill as introduced, those are important matters that are likely to be raised by stakeholders in the written and oral evidence received on the Bill and that the Committee has undertaken to consider.”
“The Justice Committee was conscious of the limited time that would therefore be available, assuming the Bill passed Second Stage in September, to consider this important legislation and to ensure that it passed through all the necessary stages before the end of the mandate. For that reason, the Committee agreed, on an exceptional basis, to call for written evidence on the Bill following its introduction to the Assembly prior to Second Stage. <BR /> <BR />The call for evidence was issued through media notices in the main newspapers and the Assembly website, and the Committee also wrote to a wide range of key stakeholders and organisations seeking views and comments. The deadline for responding to the call for evidence was 24 September, although submissions continued to be accepted until last week.”
“<BR /> <BR />Parts 2 and 3 of the Bill include provisions relating to trafficking and exploitation and to prevention orders. These clauses make minor adjustments to existing provisions and aim to improve effectiveness. The current practice of providing support and assistance to adult potential victims of slavery, servitude or forced or compulsory labour where there is no element of trafficking will be placed on a statutory footing. <BR /> <BR />The Bill was introduced to the Assembly on 5 July, just before the summer recess. That meant that the Second Stage debate could not be scheduled before September.”
“I apologise if, at this stage, it is all starting to sound very familiar. <BR /> <BR />The Committee Stage of the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Bill began on 14 September 2021. The Bill contains 22 clauses divided into four parts. Part 1 aims to strengthen the law on sexual offending to better protect children from sexual exploitation. It also creates new offences of upskirting and downblousing. The Bill will also implement a number of the recommendations contained in the Gillen report and its review of the law and procedures on sexual offences in Northern Ireland. It includes provisions to extend the current lifelong anonymity of the victim of a sexual offence, provides for the anonymity of suspects in sexual offence cases up to the point of charge and excludes the public from hearings of serious sexual offence cases.”
“From start to finish, the motion reads as an outright attack on the Office of the Police Ombudsman. I call on all right-thinking Members across the House to oppose it.”
“It does not mention issues regarding the disclosure of information and evidence from the PSNI, and it does not honestly account for the long, protracted legal challenges that impede the office's ability to fully investigate and fulfil its duties. The motion does not honestly address any of those issues because it is not about strengthening the ability of the Police Ombudsman to function in the way it was intended. The motion is about diminishing the functions of the office and, specifically, its role in historical investigations. <BR /> <BR />The DUP is making a cynical and misguided attempt to point the finger of blame for all those issues in the wrong direction. The Office of the Police Ombudsman cannot be held responsible for impediments that are out of its control.”
“I do not hear concern in the motion for the legal rights of Damien Walsh's family or the 400-plus families who are involved in historical investigations and still awaiting justice. The motion does not mention the reason why Damien Walsh's case lay with the Police Ombudsman's office since 2004 and was published only in July of this year. It does not mention that the Police Ombudsman's report found that the police investigation into Damien's murder was flawed from the outset and attempted to whitewash collusion. The motion does not honestly acknowledge the chronic lack of funding that has resulted in the Police Ombudsman not being able to complete investigations quickly enough, and neither does it mention the reluctance of former PSNI and RUC officers to give evidence and information or the ombudsman's lack of powers to compel.”
“I will not at this stage, thank you. <BR /> <BR />The motion talks about the:”
“We have a Police Ombudsman because, historically, we have had to endure bad policing, collusion, shoot to kill and deplorable interrogation methods. We have a Police Ombudsman because it is a crucial and fundamental part of our established accountability mechanisms. While today's policing is a far cry from all that, we have to ensure that those things can never happen again. Yet in the face of all that, here we have the sum of the DUP's response to those agreed accountability and scrutiny measures. <BR /> <BR />Like any organisation, the Office of the Police Ombudsman has its flaws, but it is key to the agreed policing and accountability arrangements, and to besmirch those in any way is dangerous. The DUP should explain why it seems to have chosen that direction of travel.”
“As the Member who has just spoken alluded to, the Office of the Police Ombudsman has over 400 outstanding historical investigations to consider. That is 400-plus families impacted by delay after delay. That is even more stark in the face of British Government legacy proposals that will attempt to close down all forms of truth and justice for victims of the conflict. Statutorily barring the Police Ombudsman from investigating conflict-related incidents would bring an immediate end to criminal investigations and to the prospect of prosecutions. Whilst that might be the desire of some retired RUC personnel, it would be a disgraceful affront to all families who were bereaved by the conflict. <BR /> <BR />It is worth reflecting on why we need a Police Ombudsman in the first place.”
“We have to ask this question: what is the DUP's motivation in tabling the motion? Is it to whitewash the role of the RUC in the conflict? Is it to scrap the accountability and scrutiny mechanisms that are enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement? If that is its motivation, that cannot be entertained by any right-thinking person in the House or elsewhere.”
“I am not going to beat about the bush with this today, because this motion is so crass that it must be called out as such and opposed outright.”
“Will the Minister provide an update on the latest projections for the overall cost of the victims' payment scheme?”
“Section 31 of the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act provides for DOJ to issue guidance on information and data collection to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS), the PSNI and other bodies. Will the Minister confirm whether the Department has issued any such guidance to date?”
“<BR /> <BR />Today we have an opportunity to speak with a clear and consistent voice and to call on both Governments to fulfil their international human rights obligations and provide effective investigations without further delay. As parties, despite our different standpoints, we must make a common cause and oppose, object to and challenge those proposals and stand up for the basic rights of all victims. Upholding, protecting and guaranteeing the legal rights of all victims is critical. I urge Members to support the amendment.”
“Maybe in a minute. <BR /> <BR />It would mean investigating human rights abuses, upholding the rights of victims to remedy and combat impunity. <BR /> <BR />Today we must send a clear message that any political attempts to interfere in live, impending legal proceedings or to deny victims their human rights and access to legal investigations, whether the focus of those investigations is in London or Dublin, will be resisted across the House. In reality, that means that the Irish Government have a binding duty to assist families in the same human-rights compliant manner, with the same information and to the same standard as the British Government.”
“That would mean developing human-rights compliant processes that are capable of answering the uncomfortable questions of many families and of wider society. It would mean seeking to provide maximum information to families who want answers. It would mean investigating and understanding the policy context and the state abuse of a legal process that facilitated, perpetuated and sustained the conflict.”
“It is useful to restate that position. Point 42 of the Sinn Féin response said:”
“<BR /> <BR />Today the Assembly can send another message to the British Government that it rejects their amnesty proposals for their state forces as outlined in their Command Paper of 14 July and rejects their proposed interference in the legal process whereby the PSNI and the Police Ombudsman would be statutorily barred from investigating conflict-related incidents. Should those proposals be enacted, it would bring an immediate end to criminal investigations and to the prospect of prosecutions. The British Government's proposals are an affront to all families. Not some families, not a few families, but all families. The proposals are about denying families their rights, yet here we are in that very scenario. <BR /> <BR />Sinn Féin made clear its position on the role of the Governments in its legacy consultation response in October 2018.”
“I rise to speak in favour of the Alliance amendment. I reiterate the point that my colleague Liz Kimmins made when she said that the principles that underpin the Stormont House Agreement are the basis for dealing with the past in a victim-centred manner. <BR /> <BR />I approach the debate sensitive to the hurt, pain and loss that has been felt across all our communities. At the outset, let me say that all victims and their families have a right to truth, justice and acknowledgement. Not some victims, but all victims. If we are serious about dealing with the past as the basis for building for the future, there can be no dilution or erosion of the human rights of victims.”