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 11 of 29.
“<BR /> <BR />In summary, the issues are the rating process and the potential impact on industrial derating as manufacturers; the requirement for further planning permission, either in part or in whole, depending on whether the taproom is ancillary and temporary; restrictions on opening hours, which we have already attempted to amend; where the red lines can and should go on applications for taprooms, off-licences and the toured areas; the removal of access to occasional licences and how this licence will be interpreted in the courts in the context of building regulations and by authorities, PSNI and councils, for example; and the fact that the impact of the licences might mean that it is not worthwhile for small, independent businesses to apply for them. We need to make sure that the Bill does not end up being unworkable in practice.”
“<BR /> <BR />I welcome amendment No 24 from the Minister. I thank the Department and Claire McCanny in the Bill Office for their time and support over the past week or so to help me discuss the issues that I raised at Consideration Stage on the practical outworking of and much-needed clarity on the new local producer's licence in relation to its status in the Bill and in the 1996 Order that would be amended on the basis of the "ancillary" label, which was mentioned previously.”
“Furthermore, on Kellie Armstrong's point, does it mean that if a local producer gets a taproom licence, which, I remind Members, despite attempts to say otherwise at Consideration Stage, is for very limited circumstances on hours and days, occasional licences cannot be sought on their behalf under this clause? <BR /> <BR />I do not think that we have all taken into consideration — some of us have — the effects of the practical outworkings of the Bill on viability, despite having discussed them at some length at Consideration Stage. The Committee spent a number of hours talking about the viability of the local producer's licence. <BR /> <BR />A further query for the Minister is on amendment No 13, which, as I said, changes policy by leaving out "as the court sees fit". Will the courts still issue terms and conditions under the 1996 Order?”
“Does amendment No 5 mean that those with local producer's licences under article 5(1)(m) cannot get an occasional licence via another licensed premises, namely a pub, or does it mean that local producers who do not have a taproom licence can still avail themselves of occasional licences via another licensed premises, as occurs today? <BR /> <BR />For example, I can attend a taproom event under an occasional licence, and if the local producer who runs the taproom did not apply for a taproom licence under article 5(1)(m), under the on-sale licence in article 52E, could a friendly pub still go to the courts and apply for an occasional licence on their behalf after this Bill is enacted?”
“Will the terms and conditions be set out elsewhere and are they OK under the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 as it stands? <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 8 adds further clarity on applications under articles 52E and 52F of the 1996 order and, as a technical amendment, it is welcome. <BR /> <BR />On occasional licences, Kellie Armstrong mentioned her intention to vote against amendment No 5, and I am minded to do so in the same vein. I would certainly be happy to take an intervention for clarification from the Minister on the effect of amendment No 5 on occasional licences — already in the Bill — which amends article 30 of the Licensing Order on the local producer's licence. I will raise similar issues to those that I raised at Consideration Stage about why this article is being amended.”
“If you will allow me to open my speaking notes, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will do so very quickly. I will begin, as I have done throughout the Bill's progress, by declaring an interest. I worked in the hospitality sector for 17 years and, most recently, up to March last year, in a pub in my constituency. <BR /> <BR />As has already been said, the Bill has been a long time coming. The amendments in this group, as was outlined by the Minister, are largely technical and amend the wording of a number of amendments that were made at Consideration Stage. I have no real issues in relation to most of them, but I would like clarification from the Minister as to the impact of amendment No 13 in removing the words "as the court thinks fit" on the issuing of terms and conditions for occasional licences.”
“How urgent does he feel the need to plant native broadleaf trees is so that we can start carbon sequestration?”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. I agree: there is no time for greenwashing. There never was, and there certainly is not any more. <BR /> <BR />The Minister has made announcements and noises about planting eight million trees along with Forests For Our Future, but the figures from the Department show that we have a disproportionate reliance on commercial Sitka spruce planting.”
“Has the Minister had any commitment from the new Minister of Education that the work on changes to the minimum content order will continue in her Department, given comprehensive RSE's incredible importance? Does she support the pooling of budgets to enable that work to be done and facilitated, as per the conditions in the Children's Services Co-operation Act?”
“He had something to say to you, but he made time for you. <BR /> <BR />He will always be well liked and well respected across the political spectrum. I know that Gordon's family will be very proud of what he achieved professionally as a public servant and will miss him deeply as a loved family member. My thoughts are with all the family at this most difficult of times.”
“His record of public service will be remembered well into the future. I know from the past few weeks, with the news that he was stepping down, and from overnight, that there is great sadness in North Down, particularly in the very tight-knit community in Holywood where Gordon was so well known. <BR /> <BR />I only served alongside Gordon as an MLA for the past 18 months, but I thoroughly enjoyed my engagement with him as an MLA and also as a councillor, when I sat on council with his son Stephen, and as his constituent, having lived in the area for the whole time that Gordon represented it. Like Andrew Muir, I always found Gordon to be very personable, with good humour. He certainly gave you the time of day. You were always welcome in his office to talk about any issue; he would always have you in. Gordon always said, "Hello".”
“As others have done, I express my deep condolences to Gordon's family — Gillian, Amy, Andrew and Stephen — the wider family circle, Gordon's many friends and his DUP colleagues. Gordon represented Holywood and North Down for over three decades, holding the positions of councillor, alderman, deputy mayor, mayor and, most recently, MLA.”
“I thank the Minister for her answer and for her time when she attended the APG on climate action. It was very much appreciated. It seems, though, that we are falling a bit behind by not adequately climate-proofing the now, let alone the future, in order to meet our climate needs without redoing how we do planning. What is the Minister doing to improve the statutory duties that will ensure that large infrastructure projects are properly climate-proofed to prevent a scenario where we lock ourselves in to future emissions that could have been avoided?”
“If we are legislating to extend drinking-up times and to grant later licences to assist with the ending of bottlenecks of people leaving pubs and clubs at the same time — among other things, of course — does the Bill do what it says on the tin? <BR /> <BR />I hope that all those points will be considered. We will support all the amendments in this group.”
“Again, that is something that I hope will be considered as part of any departmental review, in order to reduce antisocial behaviour and fights that happen after people have been in licensed premises — Mr Wells and Mr Allister mentioned those issues — and to reduce the pressure on the police and emergency services. <BR /> <BR />A number of other issues have been brought up. The Chair said that she would not go into all of them but that the recommendations are in the report for anybody who has read them. I have. The review is a key area that the Department should work on. It should also work on the consequences of the Bill as a whole.”
“<BR /> <BR />Finally, the impact of the coupling of the entertainment licence with the liquor licence should be part of any review, and I mentioned that matter at length during the debate on the group 1 amendments. Again, I note that the majority of respondents to the consultation favoured the continuation of the status quo that we have had since 2016, which is not what stands in clause 3. Additionally, in the consultation report, there was a common theme about justifying an extension of permitted hours with staggered closing times.”
“<BR /> <BR />Whilst I appreciate that having specific social clauses may be outside the scope of the Bill at this stage, it should be part of a review. The Executive should take a joint approach to ensure that those issues can be legislated for. Staff should be employed under fair work principles, and any exploitative practices should be tackled through legislation. This is a huge body of work, and I take that point. I would welcome a specific work stream to be undertaken by Executive Ministers — the issues are cross-departmental — on how to support the hospitality and tourism industry as a whole. Worker's voices on working conditions should be heard.”
“The review should also cover some of the additional issues that have been considered by the Committee and others that are connected to health and the socio-economic impacts that fall outside the scope of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />We are aware of a number of issues that staff have had to face, and those have been raised at Second Stage, Committee Stage and today's Consideration Stage. There are issues to do with staff safety, sexual harassment, the responsibility of business owners to get staff home at night, kicking-out time, the impact of the one hour versus 30 minutes of drinking-up time, the lack of a staggering of closing hours, and the impact on the legal entitlement to breaks and ensuring that staff get rest periods and adequate time off between shifts.”
“What regulations need to be amended to facilitate licensees to widen their community role based on the Pub is the Hub model? Perhaps the Minister can detail whether that requires primary or secondary legislation or if it can be done by way of regulation after this Bill has passed. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 59 inserts a new clause proposed by the Minister. I welcome that, as it ensures that there will be a review of and report on the implementation of provisions in Parts 1 and 2. When the Department reviews the provisions, I urge it to properly consider the impacts from the point of view of staff and those who work in the industry — the front-line workers, the kitchen porters, the chefs, the bar staff, the cleaners and the suppliers — and not just that of the traditional stakeholders.”
“All the other local services, including access to groceries, were miles away, and she had to walk or go by bicycle — not by car — in the rain, hail and snow. You could not go and get your big shop, let alone your small shop. When I explained what I was working on and would be debating in the Chamber today, she said, "Much is still the same today for our rural pubs". We have not changed. As in 1930 and 1940's Galway, people still have to travel to get local services such as access to groceries. <BR /> <BR />Why are we not supporting the Pub is the Hub campaign? The point is that the community pub is the hub, and it has been for years, especially in rural areas where other local service provisions do not exist or have ceased to exist for any number of reasons.”
“The report found that for every pound spent on a project through the Pub is the Hub's community services fund in the first lockdown, between £8·98 and £9·24 of social value was created. <BR /> <BR />It is usually Mr Catney who likes to tell stories about his life and experiences as a publican. However, a recent conversation with my grandmother came to my mind when Mr O'Toole's amendments and the lobby for rural pubs were being debated. She is 92 years old and was brought up in rural Galway in the 1930s. She mentioned that, back in the day, you had to go to your local pub to get fresh yeast for baking because there were no grocery stores nearby. She had to get a form from the police to say that she was not illegally brewing alcohol, but that is another matter.”
“We need to support our rural pubs — I do not hear anyone speaking against that — especially through the Pub is the Hub campaign that others have mentioned. There is much merit in helping pubs by making regulations that would allow them to enhance community services such as post offices and farm shops and to facilitate community meetings, events and internet access points as well as initiatives to tackle loneliness and social isolation. From recent reports, we know about the social value that pubs and publicans create by providing local services. That happened especially during the first COVID-19 lockdown. A new report from Pub is the Hub measured the social value impact of services.”
“<BR /> <BR />I welcome Mr O'Toole's intention to look, at Further Consideration Stage, at the time limits of a year and six months that are specified in his amendments, because I am concerned about them in the context of the business that the Assembly and the Department will have to deal with. I look forward to discussing that at a later time. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 46 arranges for data on operational licences to be collected and published annually. There is nothing to be feared from data collection. It is key to so much in society. I see no reason why data should not be collected on the number of licences in operation and the number of operational public houses by location. <BR /> <BR />Much has been said about the potential impact and unintended consequences of these amendments, especially in relation to rural pubs.”
“I would welcome an intervention from any Member who does see that. <BR /> <BR />There may, of course, be repercussions for loans, banking, finance, affordability, and there may be impacts elsewhere that are not covered here, but a review will show the impacts and what could happen and will look at the current system, the distribution of licences and the functioning of a system, and where appropriate, the drafting of options to compensate. Basically, it gives us information, all bedded into a report, with recommendations, that must be laid before the Assembly and published. Nothing happens without the support of the Assembly.”
“I see no reason why that should not be part of this Bill in respect of our licensing system, which is, understandably and as we have heard in the debate, incredibly complicated. There is nothing to be feared from a review; it is good to take stock and see how things are progressing and working and who they are working and not working for. <BR /> <BR />Turning to amendment No 45, whilst I understand that there would be issues with overhauling the entire surrender principle and consequences for many publicans if that happened, that is not what amendment No 45 would do. Mr O'Toole's amendment would mandate that the interests of existing licensees, including the option of compensation, be examined by an independent expert. I see nothing in the amendments to suggest that there would be a free-for-all, nor anything to do with cheaper alcohol.”
“I will not go into detail about all the amendments in the group, as others have done that. I support all the amendments in the group. I wish to highlight a few matters on amendment Nos 45 and 46, in Mr O'Toole's name, and amendment No 59, in the name of the Minister, on an independent review of the licensing system. On the face of it, the reason to support that is a simple one: why not review? Why would we not have an independent review of a system to know where we stand? On previous legislation that I have worked on in my short time at the Assembly, specifically as a member of the Justice Committee, I have pushed for review systems and mechanisms to show the effectiveness of, say, the creation of a new offence. I will continue to do so.”
“As a Member, I would welcome anyone, including the Committee, getting this down before Further Consideration Stage. Otherwise, as, I think, the Member would agree, the hours taken by the Communities Committee will be entirely wasted if it this not accessible to local producers.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. We also need to get some clarity from the Minister of Finance with regard to the rating issue that I mentioned. We also need clarity on amendments relating to the local producers' licence and taprooms over the requirements of planning, as you mentioned, and from the Minister for Infrastructure and councils. We need clarity before Further Consideration Stage on whether the amendments that we are debating tonight have the unintended consequence of impacting on industrial derating, the whole rating process and whether they are ancillary or temporary. Without that and without an explicit mention in guidance or, indeed, in the explanatory and financial memorandum, we cannot know what those unintended consequences may be.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Much has been said about this being the last sector of children's entertainment that does not have alcohol involved. That is something of a stretch. There are vast areas of children's entertainment other than cinemas that do not have alcohol: outside, parks, forest parks, going for walks, soft-play areas. In my constituency, there is the Pickie Fun Park — I am bigging that up — the swimming pool, the leisure centre, youth clubs, community venues, community organisations and networks. I do not think that cinemas are the last bastion of alcohol-free children's entertainment that they are being made out to be.”
“I would welcome an answer to most, if not all, of them with more detail.”
“<BR /> <BR />I also wish to get clarification, hopefully, from the Minister, on how a venue normally becomes designated as a place of public entertainment. Is it up to the Department to decide? When venues were added previously, was there public consultation? I am sure that nearly all of us could tell stories about people smuggling alcohol into places where it was not allowed, as Mr Durkan mentioned. Maybe that is for another time. <BR /> <BR />Fundamentally, if cinemas do not want to serve alcohol and took the decision not to have alcohol present, that decision can still be taken by them. No one is forcing a cinema to stock or sell alcohol. It is merely an option, and I go back to the point about having choice in this legislation. <BR /> <BR />Those are my issues and questions.”
“Finally, I want to mention the amendment about cinemas, tabled in Claire Sugden's name, which she has spoken to. The Committee heard evidence on the inclusion of cinemas and gave it consideration as an additional issue as part of the Bill. I read the report and listened to the speeches this evening. I note that the Committee was content with the information that the departmental officials provided and that they would consult the public on the matter over the summer. Pending that, there was agreement that regulations could be made relatively shortly. Perhaps, as others have asked, the Minister will give us an indicative date for when that consultation will be launched. We have said "the summer months". I believe that June is the summer.”
“I have read the Committee report in relation to this, and I do not understand the reasoning. If the opening hours were allowed until 11.00 pm, which is in line with other licences during the week, it would be more of a compromise, make local producers more financially viable and make it clear for those tasked with enforcement that everything was open until the same time.”
“I wish I was too young, Mr Wells. I go for the community, the friends, the good food, the music, the craic, the atmosphere and the history and culture. We have such amazing pubs in Northern Ireland. I go to taprooms for very different reasons. I go to try products that are not available in pubs and bars. In effect, I go for something different. <BR /> <BR />Given that the number of days that a taproom can operate already exists, it does not follow that there should be further restrictions on opening times in the clause. While I appreciate that it would seem that those operating times have come from a compromise in the Committee's deliberations, they are not really fit for purpose and could lead to another situation of those licences not being used.”
“It would not make local producers into pubs by another name. The amendment would allow only for an extension to opening hours, as in the Committee's proposed new clause 8A. If Members have been to a taproom, they will know that they are not pubs, as I said. They are totally different in atmosphere and in what is available. I absolutely love a pub. I have grown up in pubs.”
“I, too, thank Claire McCanny for her assistance with it, especially at such late notice. At the outset, I will say that I am happy to support the amendment standing in Ms Armstrong's name. Amendment No 29 is a very plain and simple amendment to change the opening hours allowed for local producers' licences under new clause 8A proposed by the Committee. Much like Ms Armstrong, the reason why I tabled the amendment to the opening hours is to try to make it more financially viable for local producers to create new jobs and increase investment. <BR /> <BR />Under the Committee amendment, the opening times would be six hours a day from 4.00 pm to 10.00 pm. I view that as overly restrictive with no clear rationale, because I do not see direct competition between pubs and bars and taprooms.”
“<BR /> <BR />On the occasional licences, again, I am happy to take an intervention from the Minister or anyone else on amendment Nos 33 and 34, which relate to clause 18. Is there any clarification of whether the amendment would mean that local producers cannot apply for occasional licences at a local festival, for example? Representation has been made to me about matters around occasional licences, and it would be helpful to know exactly what that amendment would and would not do. Also, why is the amendment here? Why would we stop local producers being able to apply for an occasional licence? I have not heard any reasoning for that outlined in any of the speeches. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 29 is in my name. I submitted that amendment on the same day that Ms Armstrong submitted amendment No 28.”
“Again, if the brewery floor space is used for manufacturing but there is dedicated permanent floor space and furniture there for the taproom event, different decisions could be made. However, that is not clear. It is not in the amendments, it is not in the explanatory and financial memorandum, and it has not been discussed on the Floor this evening. <BR /> <BR />As I said, much work has been done and many hours have been spent on the licensed criteria in the Bill, the amendments that we are debating tonight and the operational guidance that will come from the Department, which I welcome and which we will discuss in a later group. However, we do not want to get to a point where the regulations mean that the Bill is unworkable for the people and the businesses that it is designed for, namely the local producers.”
“I cannot speak for all local producers, but those who I have spoken to have said, perhaps rightly, that they would be happy to be rated on the basis of their taprooms and the retail that they do but not for the manufacturing premises as a whole. Why should they lose their industrial derating for an ancillary part of their business? Maybe that has already been figured out. Maybe there is an easy answer to it. <BR /> <BR />Learning from experiences in England and the Republic of Ireland, could the rating be decoupled? For example, some manufacturing businesses like printers operate as manufacturers on their premises but their front-facing section is only part of their business, so they are still industrially derated.”
“That is done through the taproom, allowed under the local producers' licence, for the nights that it is allowed and during the times that it is allowed under the licence agreement. The floor space dedicated to the taproom is therefore temporary. It could perhaps be described as ancillary to the main purpose of the building, which is manufacturing. Maybe the Minister will be able to clarify that for the local producers' licence. In Great Britain, if it is ancillary, no planning permission would be required, yet, in our Bill — and suitability of premises has been mentioned — planning permission is required. <BR /> <BR />I move on to another problem with lack of clarity around planning permission. How will LPS rate them? Licensed premises are rated on the receipts and expenditure method.”
“<BR /> <BR />To put it bluntly, the main thing that we need clarification on is the producers' licence, how it will work in practice and how it will be interpreted in the courts, as that will have consequences for those who try to get one. As I said, CAMRA talked about the uptake of licences in the Republic of Ireland and what that would mean for the local producer here. <BR /> <BR />I will use a real-life example of planning permission. In one local brewery, 95% of its floor space is used during the week for manufacturing, but, at the weekend, it puts out some temporary seating in an area that is normally used to hold stock. It therefore uses the area for manufacturing purposes from Monday to Friday and then to sell beer, as part of a taproom licence, on Fridays and Saturdays.”
“The answers were a bit of mix, but the biggest issue is difficulty in getting planning permission and the restrictions on opening hours. I know that we will deal with that issue in a number of amendments on opening hours in this group. <BR /> <BR />CAMRA stated that the requirement to obtain planning permission to operate within restricted opening hours meant that it is not worthwhile for small independent businesses to do so. It argued that we need to make sure that the Bill does not end up being unworkable in practice owing to onerous restrictions. I am sure that Committee members will agree with me that, after all the hours that they spent on this, they would not want something in the Bill that is unworkable for the very people for whom they are trying to do something.”
“I am talking about proposed new clause 8A and amendment Nos 19 and 23. Specifically, I hope to get the issues addressed and to get some answers. <BR /> <BR />Members will be aware from CAMRA's briefing that it stated that similar legislation on local producers' licences and taprooms was introduced in the Republic of Ireland several years ago and that there has been virtually no take-up of the ability to run a taproom or offer premises tours. It is my understanding that the number is as low as one or two out of the 70-plus breweries and local producers in the Republic of Ireland. I asked a few people why they think that that is the case. For example, I asked whether it is the administrative burden or the financial burden, or whether there is just no appetite amongst local producers.”
“I thank the Member for her intervention. That reiterates the need for there to be choice in the Bill. Not everyone will go to the limits that are allowed. They will go for what suits them and their local area. I do not know of any local breweries or distilleries that would want to jeopardise their local community, given that they are an inherent part of it. Again, I will get on to that later when I talk about Pub is The Hub. <BR /> <BR />I will not go into all the amendments in the group. Many of them are technical and have been discussed already, but I wish to draw attention to a number of potential issues that appear to me — I am very happy to be proved wrong — as though they could lead to the unintended consequences that Members discussed earlier but did not go into detail on.”
“If I were to go to a taproom that was open until 10.00 pm or 11.00 pm, for example, I personally would go on to a bar afterwards, especially if it is connected to or in the same town as said distillery or taproom. I will enjoy my night out, and I am free to do so. I do not see taprooms and bars as being in direct competition with each other. In fact, I see them as complementing each other, and I use the example from my constituency of how good Copeland has been to the local town of Donaghadee. I wish that distillery all the best in getting its licences. <BR /> <BR />I will now move on to some issues that have been brought up.”
“I thank the Member for his comments. I am afraid that I do not agree with Mr Wells on that.”
“Having been to many of both, I can completely attest to that. Also, why would a local producer want to sell somebody else's products? That was brought up by Mr Wells in relation to enforcement. They are the manufacturer of their own product. Why would they want to sell somebody else's product — a product that is available elsewhere?”
“I had quickly written down that I do not know how I can follow that contribution from Mr Catney, but I cannot agree more with him. As he knows, we share a passion for this industry. I had many years of slogging my guts out behind a bar, cleaning floors, cleaning up after people, serving pints and so on. <BR /> <BR />I turn to the group 2 amendments. All Members will have received briefings and, no doubt, been lobbied extensively about the local producer's licence, and rightly so. It has caused considerable debate from a number of sides. Many Members have spoken, at Second Stage or during tonight's debate, about a number of well-rehearsed issues. I reiterate comments made by Ms Armstrong earlier. Taprooms and pubs are far from one and the same. People do not go to them for the same reasons.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He has raised a number of points about the additional hour. Does he have any comments to make about the combining of the entertainment licence and the liquor licence, as is happening in clause 3 with regard to amendment Nos 4 and 5? That will ensure that there is not a spillover after entertainment ends because people will be able to stay on premises, while not being served alcohol, beyond that one hour.”
“I hope that the Minister and Committee can address some of the issues in relation to the entertainment licence that I mentioned, and amendment No 4 in her name and amendment No 5 in that of Ms Armstrong.”