Rachel Woods
North Down · Green Party · Northern Ireland
“We have to get it right, but we are not starting from scratch. We only have to look across the water or down the road to the public and private sectors that already offer that type of leave. <BR /> <BR />I now turn to the comments of other Members.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is time to end the coercive control that criminal gangs have over our communities. Victim and survivors' voices must be heard and reflected in our laws and policies. Minority groups should not be sidelined or silenced. We need to educate from a very young age.”
“There is no direct cost to employers from safe leave, and it is needed to deal with the issues related to abuse. We need to destigmatise abuse and tackle root causes, misogyny and toxic masculinity. <BR /> <BR />I agree with Mr Weir's comments. We should not need to have the protections in place.”
“I thank every Member who spoke during the debate for their comments and support for the Bill. I will address the Minister's comments first. I thank him for being here, and I am glad that he is feeling better. <BR /> <BR />The Assembly cares, and we need to work constructively together to help.”
“<BR /> <BR />As I said at Second Stage, period poverty must be viewed through the lens of children's rights and how the Bill meets our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).”
“<BR /> <BR />I take this opportunity at Final Stage to thank officials and members of the councils who took the time to discuss with me their policies, the background to them and how they are working in practice: thank you for everything that you are doing for your staff, and I hope that, should the Bill pass, your regional Parliaments an…”
The complete record
Every one of 1,434 lines we hold for Rachel Woods, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 29.
“The Minister and the Chair of the Committee also mentioned further amendments that are to be made to the Bill at Consideration Stage, which include the abolition of the rough sex defence, the extension of the revenge porn provisions to include a threat of publication and fixing the removed offences in schedule 2 to the Magistrates' Courts Order. I, too, welcome the legislation changing the abuse of trust laws here, extending them to include the non-statutory settings of sports and religious sectors. We must thank the NSPCC for its valued input and work on abuse of trust. It is paramount that, as a society, we protect all children and ensure that they feel safe.”
“Are we saying that websites hosting illegal images do not have responsibilities under this law? The provisions give them a defence if they are unaware of their platform being used for illegal publication. I know that that area is usually a reserved matter and that it may be included in the Bill on legal advice, so I wonder if it is in other devolved jurisdictions and how it is being led in England, Scotland and Wales, for example. How would the other side work, for example, if a provider knew that its platform was being used for illegal purposes yet claimed that defence?”
“If not, why not? Is breastfeeding a different category? We need to consider that. <BR /> <BR />Another part of the Bill that I have some questions about is the meaning of clause 7. That clause inserts a schedule to the 1992 Act to provide protections for certain online service providers regarding responsibility for illegal publications where the online service provider is a conduit for the relevant information, is caching the information or is hosting the information. I would appreciate further clarity on the need for those provisions and how they will work in practice.”
“A woman is breastfeeding on a train when she notices someone laughing and taking pictures. She had noted the person staring at her before that. She had thought that he was using his phone but realises quickly that he is taking photos and laughing with his friends. Note that, in that example, it is done not for the purpose of sexual gratification but for one of the other purposes that I mentioned, namely "group bonding", as the person could reasonably argue in court that they never intended to humiliate the victim but were simply playing up to their peers. The question is this: if the Bill were passed as it is, could that woman go to the PSNI and have her case referred to the PPS under clause 1? Is breastfeeding considered, under article 71B, as:”
“They are not just about sexual gratification or humiliation. They can be much more than simply "alarming" or "distressing" for the victim. The law must reflect the fundamental issues of power and control that are involved in these sorts of offences. In addition, the Bill, as it stands, does not cover the distribution of images or videos, which serves to amplify the harms of the conduct and often leads to further harm, abuse or harassment of the victim. I would certainly welcome debating and commenting on that, and I look forward to doing so as member of the Committee. <BR /> <BR />I am uncertain whether the way in which the Bill is drafted covers the times when people take non-consensual photographs of women, say, breastfeeding. For example, what if a woman is feeding in a public place? Let us take a real-life example.”
“It is not clear whether the Bill adequately covers that situation because of the limited purposes prescribed in the construction of the offence in clause 1. <BR /> <BR />The provisions as written do not cover all kinds of upskirting and downblousing. Again, the actions and behaviour of the perpetrator need to be taken into consideration. Perhaps the Minister can address this in her closing remarks: why is the motivation confined only to sexual gratification? Why does it not consider other motivations like financial gain, "banter", "a laugh" or "group bonding"? Have those been considered? Without those other motivations being considered, does that leave a legal loophole or serious difficulties down the line for prosecuting these cases? <BR /> <BR />Sexual offences comprise many different elements.”
“Some gaps here have already been looked at in England. Those are around the purposes in clause 1, as I said. Others looking at the English law have pointed to the motives that are missing. I worry that we are going down the same route of having similar limitations to legal protection from those offences and that we are not learning from others' experiences to date. <BR /> <BR />Not including additional motives or purposes may run counter to the aim of the Bill, which is to clarify the law and aid victims and police. In some cases, the victim's identity is not relevant to the perpetrators; for example, at a festival. We have discussed and heard about examples publicly, such as that of Gina Martin, who explained on Radio 4's 'Woman's Hour' what happened to her. If you have not listened to that, I suggest that you do.”
“I support the Bill at Second Stage. The Chair of the Justice Committee has outlined a number of points and issues that were raised during the evidence session last Thursday, so I will not go into most of those. The Bill, as we know, creates several new offences that will better protect citizens. Some of those stem from Gillen review recommendations and others relate to the protections offered to victims of trafficking, which can only be welcomed. <BR /> <BR />The Bill, in its current form, will offer some form of protection but, crucially, not to all victims of upskirting and downblousing. I will look at the purposes in clause 1, which deals with the two new offences of upskirting and downblousing. I raised this with officials last week when the Committee was briefed on the provisions and principles of the Bill.”
“The Minister will be aware that a review of the operation of community safety units was conducted this year. Will she give us an update on when the report for that will be published?”
“The Minister has outlined the rates review and the policy issues that have been looked at. In the last number of financial years, has policy or legislation changed the process for calculating business rates?”
“We know that alcohol misuse has been identified as a significant public health and social issue over many years, and we need to take much greater steps to deal with it. <BR /> <BR />We have much to do to help those working in the hospitality industry post COVID and to address the things that we knew about beforehand. We need to support the fantastic people working in and running hospitality businesses here, showcasing the best of Northern Ireland. We need to support all who will be impacted on by the Bill.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention, and I agree. We have a lot to look at, such as the impact of trauma and intergenerational trauma. We could look at mechanisms like the Icelandic model, which invests in its young people. We have seen massive positive changes in Icelandic society in the last 20 years, so the Executive need to look at that. <BR /> <BR />I note the Minister of Health's announcement today on the 10-year mental health strategy, and I look forward to learning more about how dealing with alcohol and substance misuse fits into that. People of all ages should be properly educated on the risks and health effects of drinking, as well as on leading a healthy, active lifestyle.”
“Of course, we need a strategy and stronger support mechanisms in place to deal with misuse, but I do not agree that licensing hours are exactly what we need to talk about; rather, we need a wider, fundamental system change in how we deal with alcohol and substances in our society. I have said this before, and I will say it again —.”
“By taking a different path with the Education Minister, we can encourage the relevant Committees to engage with the unions, sector representatives, colleges, universities and those who actually work in the industry as we try to build back better after COVID. Action is needed. We need to encourage more people into the industry. Do not get me wrong: it is an absolutely fantastic industry to work in. Northern Ireland has some of the best products — the best food and the best drink — in the world. <BR /> <BR />Mr Allister said much about the health impacts of alcohol misuse.”
“Members may watch programmes on Netflix like 'Chefs Table' and think that is what life is like for people in the industry: it is not. It covers neither the 14-plus-hour shifts when you are on your feet with little time to rest, let alone eat, nor the impact that some of those jobs can have on family life and mental and physical health. Whilst an 80% furlough payment of an already limited salary was welcome, it did not cut it. Many workers have rightly re-evaluated what they want to do and their work-life balance. <BR /> <BR />I hope the Minister for Communities, in conjunction with her Executive colleagues, will consider that.”
“Some changes will help with the impact of COVID, and some will not. There is much more that we need to do. <BR /> <BR />We have already experienced a mass exodus from the industry, particularly with chefs leaving kitchens. We talk about the brain drain, but we are experiencing a real skills drain. Many owners and head chefs will know that it is a struggle to get chefs and that was the case even before last March. Now it is near impossible. There are people who have worked in the industry for over 30-plus years who are leaving because it is so precarious. Those people can feel undervalued and underappreciated, and they are definitely underpaid for the often ridiculously long, gruelling hours they have to work.”
“Aside from my comments on taprooms, I do not think that we will be back here again soon to discuss, say, supporting the night-time economy. However, I think we will be back soon to discuss in particular the impact of clause 3 and the tying of entertainment licences to the liquor licence and to deal with issues that may arise from the review. <BR /> <BR />The Bill will also have an impact on the wider hospitality industry, as many others have mentioned, and much of it will be welcome. However, other parts will mean that the opening hours will have an impact on rotas and staff. Some public houses will not avail themselves of the later opening hours, the Sunday opening hours or the Easter opening hours, but some will. Some of the changes will be felt not immediately but in years to come.”
“If we are putting legislation through from one Department that has an impact on one or more of the other Departments, why are we not taking those issues into consideration and working out the unintended consequences that we, as MLAs, have to think about? If we do not know what they are, how can we know what they might be? <BR /> <BR />The Bill is welcome. I am glad that some of the provisions are coming into law, but I will continue to seek clarity about others. The proof of a lot of it will be in the uptake and use of the Bill, especially when it comes to taproom licences. I suspect that the Bill will not be the end of licensing reform but is merely a step in the right direction. There is much more that we need to do.”
“The impacts and changes that may come down the line for local producers that apply for the licence need to be explored. I raise those issues again, as I did at the two previous stages, because I am unclear about the details and do not have direct access to them. I do not know if the details have been worked out properly or fully, and, on the basis of the answers that I have received to my questions, I do not know if officials have the details. <BR /> <BR />When Members look at legislation that deals with a complex area and expands Departments' work — for example, licensing — it is important that all those things are fully explored and worked out before we get to Consideration Stage, for example.”
“I asked the Minister for Infrastructure the same question. Members will know that I raised issues about the planning permission requirements at Consideration Stage too. The Minister responded by saying that she was not aware of any contact between the Department for Communities and her Department on them and that, under the planning system, issues relating to applications for clubs are most certainly matters for the relevant council. I hope that the Minister for Communities and her Department, in conjunction with officials, ensure that local authorities have sufficient guidance and information at hand to deal with queries about planning permissions and any impact on building regulations and on section 23 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. <BR /> <BR />The same applies to guidance and information from the Department of Finance.”
“He responded that there had been no discussions but he was aware of the questions that Members had raised at Consideration Stage and his officials would now be doing so on any implications for business rates in the proposed changes for local producers.”
“<BR /> <BR />I would like again to draw Members' attention to an issue that has been the focus of much the debate on the Bill: the new local producers' licences. <BR /> <BR />Before I mention some wider issues, I will make a brief comment on communication, information sharing and working together between Departments and how legislation is scrutinised when changes are being made, particularly in relation to complex issues such as licensing law. I recently asked the Minister of Finance what discussion his officials had had with officials in DFC in relation to the local producer's licence and the associated rating requirements in the Bill.”
“I am glad that we have reached this stage of the Bill, and I look forward to Royal Assent, when some of the much needed changes can come in. I do not wish to speak on the Bill for long, as Members will have heard me speak on it a number of times before. I declare an interest, as I have done previously, as a former employee of a pub in my constituency; in fact, in many pubs in my constituency. <BR /> <BR />Whilst there is much more that I would like to have seen in the Bill, I am pleased to see the amendment submitted in my name at Further Consideration Stage, under section 43. It is crucial that appropriate information be produced so that those using and engaging with the legislation can understand it and know what it means for them.”
“I thank the Minister for coming here today. I understand and share the concerns of many Members and have raised a number of concerns myself about the behaviour and conduct of Capita over the years. <BR /> <BR />For this scheme, the Minister mentioned a number of oversight mechanisms and spoke about quality assurance. Is the Minister confident that enough oversight is built into the contract with Capita by her Department? If there are issues, can the Department revoke the contract, and how long is the contract for?”
“I thank the Minister for her answer. On the same theme of food and school, she will know how important it is for children to have access to enough balanced and nutritious meals for growth, health and well-being as well as for brain development and concentration. How does her Department ensure that the meals served in schools are assessed for their nutritional value?”
“I welcome the Minister to her position. With regard to the major capital works programme, the Minister will be aware that a number of climate commitments now have to be met. Will she consider writing a carbon-zero requirement into any future major capital works in the school estate?”
“I thank the Minister for his statement, and I look forward to reading the strategy later. I also look forward to the funding that is clearly needed being allocated. <BR /> <BR />I will bring the Minister back to the issue of dual diagnosis and ensuring that people who have co-occurring disorders receive the support that they need. Will the Minister outline how the actions in the strategy tie in with the substance misuse strategy and ensure that they support those with dual diagnosis, especially those trying to access housing. He will be aware that that is an issue. How will that be part of the joint working that is envisioned?”
“The Minister will definitely be aware of the impact of domestic abuse as a societal issue but also as an economic and workplace issue. Does the Minister support the introduction of 10 days of safe leave for victims of domestic abuse?”
“This should not be a matter for the courts. The process should be brought in-house completely. The Department does not even properly publish statistics on the appeals. That was subject to another report that has gone largely unchecked. <BR /> <BR />People need to be treated with fairness, dignity and respect when making social security claims. We know that they are not. Whilst we are not debating the merits of the entire process, the point remains that those administering the system have a duty to ensure that they do not fail the people whom they assess. That is the least that anyone in our society can expect.”
“Now, we have this report also highlighting the importance of evidence. <BR /> <BR />In our constituency offices, we all deal with applications for social security. Many people come to us only when they have tried all other avenues that they can see, or when things have got really bad. However, the incredible role of the independent advice sector must not be underestimated. Without it, people would be in a far worse position. <BR /> <BR />We have all helped too many people who have faced degrading and humiliating questions or had claims unfairly and unjustly rejected: people who have been let down by the system. The privatisation of the PIP process has been a disaster: the evidence that people are required to submit on the form, the support available and even the data collected and published. We have appeals going to court.”
“<BR /> <BR />The implementation of PIP has caused hardship to a significant proportion of applicants for years and has thrown many people into significant distress and despair. Despite that, even the recommendations from Walter Rader's first review of PIP have gone largely unimplemented, and I continue to receive correspondence from constituents about the same issues that have gone unchecked. <BR /> <BR />The report of the second review, which was by Marie Cavanagh, was published late last year. It contained 12 recommendations, and I encourage the Communities Minister to implement those as soon as possible. However, of particular significance in that report is a recommendation that the Department should:”
“I welcome Stephen Dunne to the Chamber. It is good to see you, Stephen. <BR /> <BR />I thank Mr Carroll for bringing the Matter of the Day forward, and I thank the Speaker for accepting it. It is indeed a Matter of the Day, but it has also been a matter that many of us have been dealing with for many years. Like other Members, I am not surprised at the outcome of the ombudsman's report. The PIP system is broken and is not fit for purpose. We know that, and last week's report was just the latest pointer to the failings. It found evidence of systemic maladministration, which is just not OK. How many more reports will we read? How many more reports will the Department read and put on a shelf?”
“I am glad that the Minister has said that it will be covered in amendment No 14, but I hope that the Department can progress some work on that through any review and going forward in general. I urge Members to support amendment No 20, which is also in my name.”
“Businesses helped people in their local areas. They offered food essentials and takeaway meals, and they delivered food to vulnerable people and those who were shielding. They also donated food that they had stocked in March to food banks. They did the same in September and December. They adapted their businesses, if they could, to a different market. As we try to build back better post-pandemic and deal with all the outstanding issues that already faced that industry, we should look at whether there is any other support that government could give to the sector. If diversifying what is on offer in a pub or bar in a certain area would mean that the place was viable and sustainable, why not? <BR /> <BR />In closing, I say that I am aware that my amendment on pub diversification is unlikely to be made.”
“Stakeholders and interested parties could be consulted, and the practical outworkings of any diversification could be understood. For example, how would it affect court applications? Would it affect the licence being granted? What would be the impact of the red line on the licensed area to sell and consume alcohol? Strict segregation of products, which happens in a supermarket, say, or an off-licence, would not work in a pub setting. Would there be a change to building regulations or planning? During a review of the consultation, those kinds of questions could be asked and answered. It is at that time, with all the information and facts, that recommendations could be brought forward if needed. <BR /> <BR />Our hospitality and pub sector has stepped up during the pandemic, as have so many people in our communities.”
“Our current licensing regulations for mixed trading only apply to off-licences, so any changes to allow for mixed trading in a pub setting would require changes to regulations and, perhaps, legislation. However, this amendment does not try to amend or change mixed trading. The Committee looked at that during Committee Stage, and it cannot be done through this legislation. However, making this amendment to the review clause would mean that this is something that could be looked at in further detail to see what could be done in the future and what appetite there would be for it.”
“They could, as an example, work in partnership with not-for-profit organisations such as Pub is The Hub and Hospitality Ulster, but this is just one example of many. I know that members of the Committee took evidence on this during their deliberations and spoke in favour of this type of model at Consideration Stage as something that they would like to explore. Again, I will not go over the details of that at this stage. <BR /> <BR />However, we know that possible diversity will not be a magic bullet to fix things overnight. However, it is something that we should explore, develop and support if required by licensees. That is especially the case with rural pubs, for example, before they are able to undertake the activity effectively.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention, and I agree with him. I hope that, in the future, we can even look at community pub models: communities buying over pubs before they are sold on for different reasons and go out of the local area, given that the community pub is the community hub, in many cases. <BR /> <BR />Whatever pubs and bars do in local areas, they want to be different from the competition, and they want to stay open. Northern Ireland's rural communities could benefit from changes to the regulations that would allow them to provide enhanced community services, like post offices, local farm shops and so on, and also to facilitate community meetings, events and internet access points, as well as initiatives to tackle loneliness and social isolation in rural communities.”
“However, costs of living and wages, longer-term shifts in consumption, the increase in sales of alcohol in off-licences, shifts in behaviour and choices, to name but a few, are some of the multiple reasons that affect the profitability and viability of pubs. However, no publican wants to close the doors without trying to make their business work. Pubs and bars will change over time as the communities around them change. They will adapt, though, and they will be different.”
“If it is, it is obviously not explicit, but what is the problem with having it on the face of the Bill? However, I appreciate the comments made. <BR /> <BR />I am aware that, if amendment No 14 is made, this amendment falls. I appreciate that this is the position, but I wish to speak to it and reiterate the importance of it. I note that, in the Minister's opening remarks on this group, she mentioned social value being covered in amendment No 14 as well. However, there is no denying that there has been a sharp fall in the number of pubs operating in Northern Ireland over the past 20 years, and many pubs are at risk. There are many reasons for that. You can set aside the pandemic, but it is another matter that we need to grapple with.”
“How can this be unpicked, and questions answered, without guidance that covers the practical implementation of it, not just for the new aspects, such as the local producer's licence, but for the practical implementation of the new requirements for off-licences, supermarkets, cinemas and those hosting underage functions? <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 15 is a very simple one to add in the requirement, during the review of this Act, to look in detail at pub diversification. Many Members at Consideration Stage spoke of the possible merits of the Pub as The Hub model, about the importance of pubs and bars to local communities, especially in rural areas. There was also concern about the number of pubs that have closed or are at risk of closure. The Minister and Members have said that this is already covered in amendment No 14.”
“I have already outlined some of the concerns that have been raised with me in relation to the operation of the local producer's licence, and I stand by those concerns. It is clear to me, from the conversations that I have had over the last three weeks with the sectoral organisations and representatives from the industry, as well as local producers in my constituency, there are parts of the Bill that are fundamentally unclear. <BR /> <BR />Industry reps wrote to the Minister outlining their concerns on opening hours, planning permissions, rating, the application process and so on. Not all of the concerns that were brought can be answered in the details of the Bill. A lot of them will need answers, or they will be up to the courts to decide. That is where I see the amendment fitting into the departmental guidance.”
“Licensing legislation involves many people, from local producers and alcohol manufacturers to the pubs, city-centre bars, councils, local residents, Departments, courts and other interested parties. Therefore, it must be fit for purpose. Guidance must be clear, accessible and easy to follow. I am not suggesting that clause 43 is not those things, but adding the words "practical implementation" will, I hope, ensure that the details that are needed for people to access are made available. <BR /> <BR />I know that the Minister indicated that she is not in favour of the amendment and pointed to the schedules to the Bill. Personally, I could not make head nor tail of the schedules without accompanying guidance.”
“With the creation of any new legislation, there must be accompanying guidance, so I welcome the fact that that requirement is in the Bill. The guidance, though, must serve and give details to those whom the Bill affects. As I stated, that guidance will most likely be very hefty, given the wide impacts of the Bill and its complexity. I have been looking at the Bill for the past few weeks, and I still need clarity. I am not a local producer, a bar owner or someone who will have to try to navigate the system. The system is complex. It is a maze, and people need some sort of helpful map to get through it. <BR /> <BR />As I said before, the 1996 Order is complex legislation and the Bill will only add to it.”
“As I said, we do not want to get to a point where the licensing criteria in the Bill and its operational guidance and regulations mean that it is unworkable for the people and businesses that it is designed for. It is for the small, independent local producers, not the big boys. That remains to be seen. <BR /> <BR />I will speak first on amendment No 20 and then on amendment No 15. Amendment No 20 is very simple. It adds to the guidance that will be produced as part of the Bill becoming an Act by stating, under clause 43, that the "practical implementation" of the Bill will also have details published and available on it. The reasons for the amendment are quite self-explanatory and relate to my comments at Second Stage, Consideration Stage and during the group 1 debate today.”
“Without knowing the details of those types of data issues, I will leave my comments on amendment No 16 there. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 15 and 20 stem from a number of issues that I raised at Consideration Stage. I will not go into every detail, because Members will have heard it all before and my comments are similar to those that I made during today's group 1 debate. Local producers and representative bodies raised a number of issues about the practical outworkings of the clauses in the Bill that relate to the local producer's licence, what it will mean in practice, the potential impact of accessing a licence on their business and current operations and whether it will be viable. I outlined those issues when I spoke on amendment No 24 in group 1.”
“If Mr O'Toole thinks of himself as the uncle figure of the Bill, I am probably the annoying family member who you see a few times a year and who only visits and chimes in at Second Stage, Consideration Stage and today. I promise that I will not be back at Final Stage, and I will buy a round. <BR /> <BR />Before I discuss amendment Nos 15 and 20 that are tabled my name, I would like to support Mr Allen's comments about using postcode prefixes where they are available. On the surface, I do not see any GDPR issues, and I would certainly welcome an explanation. Those licensed premises are public houses or bars. We know where they are, and they will be listed in Companies House. I am not sure about the data issues, but I am happy to support the amendment that is on the Marshalled List.”
“<BR /> <BR />I will draw my remarks to a close on this group, as I will pick up on the complex nature of the legislation and the need for clear guidance on its practical implementation in the group 2 debate under the amendment tabled in my name.”
“I echo those comments in asking the Minister to engage with the Minister of Finance on the rating issues, to establish whether regulations or guidelines are needed to progress them, as the extent of the relief through industrial derating is determined by statute. Derating is apportioned according to the occupation for other purposes. We still need to work out those fine details. <BR /> <BR />A lot of the Bill is complex in nature, alongside the maze that is the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 — I do not claim to know anything about it at all, but fair play to anybody who does. Much of this Bill seeks to amend the Order. I welcome the clarification in amendment No 24, and I hope that it does just that. The need for information is a key issue that has been brought to me by sector bodies and local producers in the last few weeks.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 24 seeks to make it clear in the legislation that the taproom aspect of the licence is ancillary to the main functions of the area. Using the example that I gave at Consideration Stage, if the taproom element of the licence, namely the red line, is around 5% of the manufacturing or production building, that is treated as ancillary to the main purposes of the premises. <BR /> <BR />Can the Minister confirm that that will mean that planning permission will still be required for the licences to be issued and whether she has discussed or will discuss that with the Minister for Infrastructure and the local planning authorities to assess any impact on their business?”