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 13 of 18.
“That is why we feel that those amendments are not needed. <BR /> <BR />I will draw my remarks to a close by thanking the Minister for the amendments that she has tabled today in an effort to work collegiately with Members across the House to tidy up some of the amendments that they have passed over previous weeks. I reiterate my previous comments about this being a hugely positive step. We are a step closer to seeing this much-needed Bill enacted as legislation, which will give our hospitality and tourism sector a much-needed boost.”
“<BR /> <BR />With respect to the amendments in group 2, I will first deal with amendment No 15 in the name of Rachel Woods. I believe that that amendment is sufficiently covered by amendment No 14. As the Minister said, an examination of the social benefits or otherwise of diversity of trade on licensed premises is adequately covered by the terms set out for the review in new clause 24(2)(a) and (e), proposed by amendment No 14. It is not that I do not see the point of the amendment; I do not see the need for the amendment, given that we have amendment No 14. <BR /> <BR />We also feel that amendments Nos 20, 21 and 22 are unnecessary. Efficiency should be a given for all Departments that bring through legislation, and this Department should be no different. We do not see any divergence in approach there.”
“My comments on this group of amendments will be brief. I am glad that we are getting through the amendments more efficiently today, as I do not think that anybody wants to hang around until 3.00 am or 3.30 am. Exhausting as that was, however, it was important that we had the debate that night, and I am thankful to the Minister for facilitating that. As Committee members, we tend to think of the Bill as our baby, but, of course, it is for Members in the House to have their say and to table amendments if they wish to do so. I am impressed by and pleased at the support for the Bill and the interest in it. I previously outlined that I am glad to support the Minister's intention for the Bill to have a positive impact on our hospitality and tourism industry.”
“<BR /> <BR />Today's debate is another important step closer to seeing the Bill introduced. The positive impact that it will have on our hospitality and tourism sector really cannot be overstated. With that said, I draw my remarks to a close on the first group of amendments.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 7 and 8 relate to taprooms, about which there was a lengthy debate just a couple of weeks ago. The amendments are the result of a new subsection 52E, which was included in clause 11. Those amendments will ensure consistency with the Licensing Order and the protection of young people. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 8 means that if a taproom has children in it, they must be seated at a table away from the bar and be off the premises by 9.00 pm. We welcome those amendments from the Minister, and we will support them. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 11 to clause 20, on the prohibition of loyalty schemes, simply improves the drafting of the clause and makes it clear. Again, we welcome that, as it removes any uncertainty around the clause.”
“The legislation will give them the mechanisms that they need to recover from the effects of the pandemic, as well as the modernity that they have been crying out for. <BR /> <BR />The amendments that have been accepted for Further Consideration Stage are just as important as the many that we debated at Consideration Stage. Many of the amendments are technical, but they will further strengthen specific clauses. Twenty-four amendments have been accepted. That highlights the importance of the legislation to the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 1 and 3 to clause 9 relate to cinemas and will significantly increase enforceability. We welcome the Minister's amendments around that clause. That will allow people to consume alcohol at cinemas, but it will also ensure that there are strict regulations around it.”
“The Bill will bring the North into line with other jurisdictions and ensure that it is no longer the poor relation when it comes to modernity in liquor licensing laws. Huge opportunities will arise from the legislation's introduction for, as I said, hospitality and tourism, and there also is the potential for job creation in many sectors. <BR /> <BR />From listening to and engaging with the public and the hospitality and tourism sectors since the Bill's Consideration Stage debate, I found that they are excited and are eagerly awaiting the legislation's introduction. They feel that it will be a crucial piece of the jigsaw in their COVID recovery. Pubs and clubs have been closed for a long time.”
“It is good to be back on the Floor to debate further this really important and much-anticipated piece of legislation. It was clear from the lengthy debate at the previous stage only a few weeks ago how important the legislation will be for our hospitality and tourism sectors in the North. <BR /> <BR />In the Bill's Committee Stage and its stages in the House, I outlined the reasons why I think it is so important. You will be glad to know that I am not going to go over all those points now, but it is important to mention that the Bill will play a major role in allowing our hospitality and tourism sectors to flourish and will help their post-COVID recovery. <BR /> <BR />The debate and its nature illustrated that the majority of the House is on the same page on modernising our out-of-date liquor licensing legislation.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Would he agree with me that Irish language speakers did not cause the crisis in our health service and that it was caused by years of Tory austerity and cuts? Would he also agree that the constant framing of language rights as some sort of Sophie's choice with Health is wrong and disingenuous and that those who persist with that line are, frankly, at it?”
“I thank the Member for that very comprehensive answer. She referred to the electric vehicle charge points. Has the Commission considered extending their number across the estate?”
“What consideration has the Commission given to the introduction of more family-friendly measures in the Assembly for Members and staff, including childcare provision?”
“As someone with a parent who is on a waiting list, I know how important it is to tackle this crisis. It is not just a political priority for me, it is a personal priority. <BR /> <BR />Minister, of the £700 million that you have identified as being needed to reduce elective care waiting lists, how much of that do you envisage going to the private sector, and how much will be used to retain and recruit staff?”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. <BR /> <BR />The extension of opening hours and the removal of restrictions around Easter opening are appropriate. The industry has been calling for that for a long time. I hope that the Bill will pass through the Assembly as quickly as possible. It is long past the time that our liquor licensing laws were brought into the 21st century.”
“It is clear that the majority of the House wants to see modern, fit-for-purpose licensing laws. This is the first legislation that I have had an active role in advancing, and I am proud to have been involved in it. I am proud of the overwhelmingly positive impact that it will have on our hospitality and tourism sectors. It is exactly what we need, particularly at this time, as we try to build back from COVID.”
“Sinn Féin believes that more evidence gathering and consultation need to be carried out on the issue of taprooms, given that it was not included in the original consultation and no impact assessment has been carried out. It was good to hear the Minister stating her intention to do that at a later stage. It is clear that local producers will, through the mechanisms in the Bill, add great value to our tourism and hospitality sector. We must accommodate them in doing that, but we also must ensure that the right balance is struck so that our pubs are not put at a disadvantage. That is why we support the Minister's amendments and call for greater research to be carried out. There will be an opportunity to revisit the issue in due course. <BR /> <BR />I am so enthused to see such positivity and enthusiasm around the Bill.”
“How will they feel if some of them, which are listed in group 2, pass? <BR /> <BR />I am not sure that shoehorning amendments into the Bill without an understanding of the unintended consequences is the wisest thing to do. If some of the amendments in group 2 pass, we will need to build in protections for our traditional bars and pubs, particularly those in small rural places such as some of those that I represent in South Down.”
“<BR /> <BR />Of course, any Member is entitled to table amendments to the Bill, including members of the Committee. That is their right. However, I question the motives behind some of the amendments tabled by the likes of Kellie Armstrong, who is a Committee member, and I wonder whether the unintended consequences of those amendments and the impact that they could have on traditional pubs and bars been considered. Is it more about grabbing individual headlines at the expense of achieving a fair and balanced liquor licensing Bill that gives everyone, local producers and the hospitality sector, a fair crack of the whip? What will traditional pubs and the wider hospitality sector, which has struggled greatly over the past year and a half due to the necessary COVID restrictions placed on them, make of the amendments tabled this evening?”
“I make this point to lay it out for Members, because it is important for them to understand the importance that we placed on the issue and how the Committee attempted to find a balance between the asks of local producers and the needs of the hospitality industry as a whole. The detail that we received and considered was vast, and I am entirely satisfied that the Committee gave the matter the attention that it deserves. <BR /> <BR />Sinn Féin believes wholeheartedly that local producers should be afforded the mechanisms and opportunity to grow their business. There is huge potential for them to play an important role in our economic recovery and help to grow our tourism product. That opportunity has been afforded to them in the form of the Minister's Bill.”
“As the Chair said, and I am sure the Minister will address it, the Minister has already committed to carrying out a consultation on cinemas. I urge Members to bear it in mind that the Committee unanimously decided to support the Minister in that endeavour, due to the fact that cinemas were not included in the original consultation. It is only when we have all the necessary information to hand on the consequences, including possible unintended consequences, that we will be able to make an informed decision on cinemas. <BR /> <BR />I turn to the amendments relating to local producers. As I stated, we took 58 written submissions, 35 oral evidence sessions and spent hours deliberating over many meetings and scrutinising the evidence that we received.”
“However, there was also a compelling public health message. I ask Members to bear it in mind that, while the intention of the Bill is to relax the licensing laws and provide greater opportunity for people, if they so wish, to socialise in venues that serve alcohol, it is important that we are cognisant of the fact that we need to provide people and, more importantly, families and children with venues such as cinemas that are alcohol-free. We heard compelling public health advice to that effect. We cannot forget our responsibility to look after our young people in particular in that regard. <BR /> <BR />That is not to say that there is no case to be made for cinemas or that cinemas should be ruled out in the future.”
“It is important for Members to understand the scale on which the Communities Committee consulted and engaged on the Bill, and that has been outlined by the Chair and other members. As the Chair outlined, we took 58 written submissions and 35 oral evidence sessions over 30-plus weeks and devoted no fewer than 10 hours, over eight or more meetings, to deliberating and scrutinising the evidence that we received, and the majority of that time was taken up with the issue of local producers. <BR /> <BR />Before I comment on the local producers' licence, I want to touch on amendment No 7, which relates to cinemas and whether they should be listed as places of public entertainment and therefore permitted to sell alcohol. We heard evidence from cinema operators on the issues facing the industry, and the Committee was sympathetic.”
“I also recognise the efforts of departmental staff, such as Liam Quinn, Carol Reid and Suzanne Breen, who have been on hand as and when the Committee needed and provided a good sounding board and link between the Committee and the Department.”
“I will speak broadly on the group 2 amendments. As the Chair has just done, I put on record my thanks to the Assembly staff, including the Clerks, particularly Claire McCanny in the Bill Office for her invaluable assistance throughout the Committee's deliberations on the Bill.”
“Thank you. I appreciate that. <BR /> <BR />All that I am hearing from the Member is childish politicking. If the Minister for Infrastructure cannot fix a pothole or our rural roads with the largest allocation and biggest budget that that Department has ever received, what is she doing? What is the point? If she cannot do it with that budget, what is she doing? Maybe the Member will enlighten the House on what she is doing with that money.”
“Minister, those who make a living from performing were obviously some of the most affected by the pandemic. Despite that, they have been to the fore of keeping public morale up by giving online performances. I commend them for that. I also commend the Minister for the supports that she put in place to support that sector. <BR /> <BR />The Minister outlined some of this in her response to previous questions, but does she recognise and agree that there will be a need for continued support for that sector as we progress through the recovery?”
“I welcome the Minister's clarification. Obviously, the review of non-fatal strangulation offences is crucial work, and I welcome the work that has been done. Can the Minister confirm whether she anticipates the outcome of the review of non-fatal strangulation offences being reflected in changes to her justice Bill?”
“No, thank you. <BR /> <BR />They do not want any investigation of the killing of Pat Finucane, because they know what happened. They wrote the script, and, to this day, they continue with the cover-up. In refusing to direct a public inquiry, the British Government are covering up state — state — murder. That should concern everybody in the House, and that must be exposed and challenged. <BR /> <BR />I urge Members to support the motion and to support a public inquiry into the British state killing of Pat Finucane.”
“<BR /> <BR />I set all that out to make the point that, when it comes to legacy, the British Government's primary focus above all else is to protect their own narrative of the conflict, to protect their own forces and to shut down any investigation of their role in the conflict. Where else would you get a Prime Minister acknowledging "shocking levels of collusion" in the killing but then refusing to direct an investigation?”
“No, I will not. Thank you. <BR /> <BR />The British Government's real intent to legacy was laid bare in a Westminster statement on 18 March 2020 from Brandon Lewis. That represents a significant, considered and calculated breach of trust. What we are now witnessing is the outworking of the same approach to the Finucane family: the lack of progress on implementing the Stormont House Agreement. Yet again, the British Government enter into agreements and then simply refuse to implement them. In a brazen manner, they stonewall and drag their feet. They care little for the delay and frustration caused to families. Just look at how they treated the Ballymurphy families last week. Despite having 50 years to prepare, they could not deliver a meaningful apology, because they just do not care enough about Irish lives.”
“Despite widespread public support for key elements of the Stormont House Agreement and strong opposition to any form of amnesty, statements by the British Government represent a clear and cynical departure from the policy intent and the mechanisms outlined in that agreement.”
“It is also about continuing the practice of impunity for those in the upper echelons of the British establishment who developed the policy of collusion, gave the orders and pulled the strings of those involved. <BR /> <BR />During the Stormont House Agreement negotiations in 2014, it was very clear to us from engagements at the time that the families wanted choices when seeking answers about the loss of a loved one. Some families wanted information. Others wanted a storytelling option, while others wanted investigations. What was most clear was that they wanted to make the choice.”
“I support the motion. Following on from what my colleague Gerry Kelly said earlier, I, too, am aware that so many families across our community live with the consequences of the death or injury of a loved one during the conflict. For the record, all those families deserve answers and as much information as possible. Today, however, we are speaking about the state-sponsored murder of human rights lawyer Pat Finucane in 1989. <BR /> <BR />Commitments were made 20 years ago at Weston Park to hold an inquiry into the state killing of Pat Finucane. Twenty years on, there is still no inquiry. People may ask why. The simple answer is that it is to deny truth to the Finucane family about the British state's role in the planning, orchestration and, ultimately, cover-up of the killing.”
“— the DUP championed, that the DUP voted for and that the DUP still supports today.”
“Thank you. I will finish my point. The protocol is not the issue that is facing health. The issue is that Brexit is fundamentally bad for people's health. That is a Brexit that —”
“I was finishing. He did not have to interrupt.”
“— that you championed and that you still support today.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. If the DUP is genuinely concerned about the impact that Brexit will have on health, why do I not hear it talking about the new barriers that EU healthcare workers are facing and the impact that those barriers will have on staffing levels? Why do I not hear the DUP talking about the cross-border health directive? Surely those issues will have an immediate impact on our health service. I would like to hear you talk about that, Mr Buckley, instead of the motion that is in front of us and the inaccuracies that it presents in an attempt to deflect from the protocol. The issue for health is not the protocol. Rather, the fundamental issue is that Brexit is bad for health. That is a Brexit that you voted for —”
“Does the Minister agree that New Decade, New Approach was the basis on which the institutions were re-established and that we need to see full delivery of the NDNA commitments by the Executive, the Assembly and, crucially, the British and Irish Governments?”
“We know that we will need expert ecologists and biologists to be brought in to assess the damage, and Minister Murphy has pledged that there will be no more looking down the back of the sofa for pennies to help repair the damage that has been caused. However, throwing money at it is not the answer. It will not be enough if we do not have a plan. We need a plan, and I call on the Minister to establish a task force and a round-table discussion immediately that will involve central government, councils and various agencies and landowners putting the necessary action plans in place to protect and repair our most precious environments.”
“Governments must also manage and protect our areas of natural beauty instead of prostituting them for economic gain. There is a draft peatlands strategy gathering dust in the Department: let us get it off the shelf and get it published. <BR /> <BR />As I said in the Chamber a couple of weeks ago, £4·5 million has been spent by the Fire and Rescue Service on tackling wildfires, yet local management groups like the Mourne Heritage Trust receive only a fraction of that to manage and protect the Mournes. We have got our priorities all wrong with that, and something needs to change. I am delighted that, following his visit to the Mournes this morning, the Finance Minister, Conor Murphy, has pledged to make the necessary funding available to help repair the damage.”
“Certainly, the intent was to cause damage, but what we can all hopefully agree on is that gorse burning as a means of clearing land is not the way to do it and should not be incentivised. <BR /> <BR />I know that the relevant agencies are continuing their investigations. Hopefully, they will be successful in their efforts, but what will the punishment be? The judicial process for such matters is wholly inadequate. A small fine will probably be the result. The punishment for this type of arson should match the crime of destroying a natural asset. <BR /> <BR />The majority of farmers care greatly for the environment, but Governments North and South must work with farmers to enable them to transition to practices that do not necessitate such destruction.”
“Put simply, we just cannot afford to lose that amount of peatland. It was not a one-off event. The area has been burnt before, and we know that certain species simply have not recovered from the last event. Every time we have a wildfire, particularly if it is on the scale that we have experienced in the Mournes in recent years, we lose more and more vital plant life, animals, insects and, of course, peatland. <BR /> <BR />I cannot let the debate go by without talking about gorse fires and land clearing. We know that the latest fire in the Mournes was started deliberately. The Minister suggested at the time that it could have been a result of day trippers hiking up the Mournes in their flip-flops and lighting barbecues. Maybe it was, or maybe the more plausible explanation is that it was a result of land clearing.”
“That is great — of course we want people to people to come to south Down — but the Economy Minister and her Department need to get real about the impact of increased tourism on places like south Down, Kilbroney, the areas around Carlingford lough and, of course, the Mournes. I call on her to make funding available from her Department to mitigate the impact that increased tourism will have. <BR /> <BR />Some 3 square kilometres of the Mournes were burned, including vital peatland. A large number of nesting birds were waiting on their young to hatch, and we have many other forms of wildlife that contribute to the delicate ecosystem that exists in the Mournes. As my colleague alluded to, peatlands lock away carbon, which is an essential function in helping Ireland and Britain to meet their targets in reducing greenhouse gases.”
“They are an iconic natural asset not just for this region but for the island as a whole. During the last year, they have taken on a greater significance for people, with many trekking and hiking in them and some people discovering their majesty for the first time. That is one of the only positives to come out of COVID over the last year. However, the Mournes are more than just a nice place to spend a day. Their peatlands and heathlands are special areas of conservation, and they are designated for their wildlife and habitats. Recently, I heard the Economy Minister encouraging people to holiday at home and take advantage of the natural assets that we have on our doorsteps.”
“This morning, a Sinn Féin delegation led by Chris Hazzard, the MP for South Down, and including the Finance Minister, Conor Murphy, joined the National Trust to survey the damage caused by last month's devastating fire in the Mournes. I spoke to my colleagues prior to coming into the Chamber for the debate to get their feedback, and they spoke of the impact and the effect on our wildlife and sensitive habitats as apocalyptic. The motion acknowledges the heroic efforts by the fire and rescue services in tackling the fire in the way that they did. I reiterate my thanks and those of the people across South Down and beyond to the men and women who battled acres of blazing peatland with shovels in the most oppressive heat and in a gruelling location. <BR /> <BR />The Mournes are an area of outstanding natural beauty.”
“I thank the Minister for his response. Obviously, there is support and investment in Irish-medium education in South Down, but Bunscoil an Iúir in Newry also caters for children from South Down and is an immediate and direct responsibility of the Department of Education. In that context, Minister, will you give a commitment to visit Gaelscoil na mBeann again, and also Bunscoil an Iúir, to see the excellent work and education that is being provided and to see what investment — capital or otherwise — those schools need to keep that high educational standard going?”
“Like Kellie Armstrong, I want to ask about the common funding scheme. This is important work, particularly in the context of the recent Audit Office report on how special educational expenditure targets disadvantage. When does the Minister expect the review to conclude, and when does he expect to present the final report on the common funding scheme?”
“I, too, welcome the Minister's statement. As was said many times yesterday, and I will reiterate today, agriculture is a key and valued part of our economy, and modern, fit for purpose educational facilities are key to its future. What assurances can the Minister give that disruption at CAFRE, and to the courses at Greenmount and Loughry, will be minimised over the next years?”
“The desire to protect Belfast type 1 emergency departments at the expense of other areas is an equality issue and would undoubtedly fall foul of equality legislation if it were applied under normal circumstances. Rural communities such as South Down are now being left in a precarious situation with no recourse to equality impact screening or assessments. The fatal consequences of that are exacerbated by the fact that it is being done in haste with no forum for public scrutiny. <BR /> <BR />I will finish by reiterating my call for the Department of Health, in partnership with the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust, to urgently establish a pathfinder model of engagement that will help support and protect the long-term sustainability of the Downe Hospital in Downpatrick.”
“Will you let me finish? Sorry; you will have ample time at the end to respond. <BR /> <BR />Failure to do so will be hugely damaging to public confidence in the transformation process and a stark illustration that, once again, the unelected transformation management board in the Department of Health is driving the process of transformation, not the publicly accountable Minister. <BR /> <BR />The cumulative effect of all the issues I have outlined has added further weight to the argument that local services, staffing models and the long-term viability of emergency medicine at the Downe Hospital are being cannibalised in an effort to sustain the delivery of services in the greater Belfast area. It is clear that staff in the local hospital are being used to plug gaps elsewhere, and that is unacceptable.”