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 3 of 29.
“I understand the concept of a minimum floor, as it were, but, if someone does not need support after 12 months, will we have a situation, which others have touched on, where they have to continue receiving support under amendment No 14? What if the person is out of the country? What if the person is no longer in Northern Ireland? How will that work with amendment No 14? Is it good practice? <BR /> <BR />The Committee discussed and deliberated on those issues and settled on a needs-based approach, which is what we have in amendment No 12. I know that the Department has discretion and exercises it, but amendment No 12 makes it much more specific. Have the Members who have tabled the amendments considered, in the crudest way — I am not one to make that kind of comment — the potential impact of amendment No 14 on public expenditure?”
“<BR /> <BR />I am a bit surprised to see the amendments in the names of the Chair, Mr Newton and Mr Weir. The Committee did not get a chance to discuss them, and I appreciate that timing is always an issue when a Bill is coming to Consideration Stage. However, it is my understanding that amendment Nos 14 and 15 are mutually exclusive to amendment No 13 and that it will be up to Members to decide between them. I know that Mr Weir has provided an explanation, but what is the rationale for creating a 12-month basis if what is proposed in the Committee amendment is support based on need? Surely support should be given to people on the basis of need.”
“There were many discussions on social security support, and it is my understanding that the Minister of Justice cannot legislate on that. I encourage the Minister for Communities to investigate what can be done in her Department on the provision of social security support. <BR /> <BR />The Committee also tabled amendment No 12, which uses the words "based on need". Whilst the Department has flexibility and provides support, the amendment explicitly writes it into primary legislation that support should be based on need. The amendment should not be the end, and I encourage, as requested by the Migration Justice Project, the Department to consult on how better to practically administer support in the post-NRM stage that is based on the individual's need.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee had long discussions on the effect of clause 16 and the extension of the statutory assistance and support provided under section 18 of the 2015 Act to potential adult victims of slavery, servitude or forced or compulsory labour where there is no element of trafficking. Support to such victims has been in place in Northern Ireland since March 2016 but not as a statutory requirement. A number of organisations raised the point that the provision could be extended, as we heard that victims of human trafficking in Northern Ireland had experienced destitution and homelessness despite a positive national referral mechanism outcome. We have, however, heard a mix of positions on whether to make legislative change and, if it is needed, what it could be or look like.”
“I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate on the group 2 amendments, which focus on human trafficking protections. As others have outlined, the amendments are mostly about the trafficking and exploitation of people, and they look to further protect some of our most vulnerable people. I do not intend to speak for long on the group, you will be glad to know, as the majority of the points have been covered by the Chair and other members of the Committee, but I want to touch on a few things and to highlight some areas that need further work and focus, especially in the next mandate.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Will he clarify whether the two amendments tabled in his name cover people who have exited the NRM? The example that the Member is giving is of someone who has left that process. I would welcome clarity on whether the amendments that he tabled cover support after the NRM process has been finalised.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Will he clarify his comments about amendment No 13? Is it his intention to oppose amendment Nos 12 and 13, which are both in the name of the Committee?”
“We have much to do to extend protections to children and young people on child sexual exploitation, equal protection, youth justice, including the minimum age of criminal responsibility, and implementing the rest of the Gillen review.”
“The Committee also heard from the PPS and looked at the new offence of strangulation and suffocation that was introduced in England and Wales in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 that was passed at Westminster. It would have been completely shameful if we had not taken the opportunity to legislate on that now, especially when we are threatened with the uncertainty of another post-election hiatus. I sincerely hope that the amendment and the introduction of the new offence will provide the legal certainty and protection that victims and survivors need urgently. <BR /> <BR />I urge the next Justice Minister and whoever finds themselves sitting as a member of the Justice Committee in the next mandate to watch this space closely and to ensure that legislative change works in practice.”
“Taken together, the amendments should provide legal protections that are much more robust than those that currently exist. <BR /> <BR />In its 2019 'No excuse' report, the Criminal Justice Inspection recommended:”
“I am interested to hear the Minister's views on those and on what further work her Department will do in response to the evidence that the Committee received. <BR /> <BR />In concluding my remarks on the group 1 amendments, I thank the Minister and her Department for tabling the amendment to introduce the offence of non-fatal strangulation or asphyxiation. I am glad that that is happening and that there will be no more delay in legislating for it. The Committee looked at it first in 2020 during its deliberations on the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Bill. It is also closely linked to the so-called rough sex defence, which has been used as a defence in non-fatal strangulation assaults, even when victims have stated openly that they did not consent to those assaults.”
“In such cases, it is and must remain a matter for the courts to determine whether consent was present and, if so, whether any mitigation in sentence is merited. <BR /> <BR />I urge the Department to explore and possibly consult on the creation of a new sexual homicide offence. That is something that we could have for Northern Ireland. It would help to deal with scenarios where the rough sex defence was employed in the prosecution, which then failed to move forward with murder charges. There are other possible solutions to strengthen the legal position, including introducing an aggravating factor at sentencing, giving the Director of Public Prosecutions a role in cases where the defence is used or introducing certain court rules where the defence of rough sex will be used.”
“However, I am disappointed that we have not explored the introduction of a sexual homicide offence in more detail, as was suggested by the Women's Policy Group and others and raised at Second Stage. Victim Support was of the view that placing R v Brown in statute may not in and of itself resolve the problem of a claim of rough sex gone wrong being raised in murder cases. Obviously, it is a serious and complex issue that involves the balancing of rights, and, as explained, it is not possible to preclude defendants from raising an assertion in evidence that the injured party consented to the behaviour that led to the charge brought again them. It is an ECHR matter of a fair trial that should not be interfered with.”
“As legislators, we need to satisfy ourselves that the laws that we pass will be subject to adequate post-legislative scrutiny, issues will be identified quickly and solutions will be developed. The new clause will help to facilitate that process. It will also encourage more openness and transparency in the work of putting new laws into practice, support the public awareness and cultural shifts that we need and help us to see clearly how things are working out so that we can review them effectively, strengthen certain provisions or close potential loopholes in the future. <BR /> <BR />On the rough sex defence and amendment No 18, I very much welcome the Minister's amendment to codify the case law since R v Brown.”
“I recognise the crucial work that the Department will do through its task and finish group with all partners, and I do not believe that the new guidance clause will take anything away from that; if anything, it will enhance that work. The key point is that there will be a duty on the Department to ensure that the guidance on Part 1 includes information for use in training and for monitoring the operation of the law.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you and all other Members of the House will be glad that I do not intend to repeat previous speeches — there have been many — on the importance of guidance when we create new criminal offences, and I am glad that the Committee shared my views on the need for the new clause relating to guidance on Part 1. As with other Bills that we have considered on domestic abuse and protection from stalking, guidance will help to ensure the effective implementation of the legislation. It is not just for the benefit of the criminal justice system and the operationalisation of the new offences that we need guidance; it is to help those in the voluntary sector and education settings and to boost overall public awareness of new criminal offences.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee heard loud and clear the calls from children's sector organisations to include and capture other forms of inducements when defining payment in child sexual exploitation cases, and I understand that concerns were raised about the potential for clarification regarding other inducements, which may, in their words, have unintentional consequences. I believe, however, that the Committee's approach here is the correct one, and the amendment is carefully crafted to provide a simple clarification that the interpretation of payment should not be limited solely to money. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 11 introduces guidance on Part 1.”
“I agreed wholeheartedly with many representations received by the Committee that called for changes in terminology to be applied consistently in all communications and documentation in order to drive the cultural shift that is needed in the way that we talk about and address child sexual exploitation and abuse. The Department advised that it would be wary of changing any language that may impact legal certainty in that regard, so I ask the Minister, if she can, to point out what the barriers are and how we can get to a point where the language that we use around this, especially from a legal perspective, clearly captures harm and leaves no room for euphemism, ambiguity or downplaying the severity of these crimes.”
“The legislative changes set out in clause 3 are long overdue. It is beyond belief that the current legal position, which is reflected in the 2008 Order, refers to "child prostitution" and child porn, which could be interpreted to imply that children are responsible for or willing participants in their abuse. That language was scrapped in England and Wales some time ago, as noted in the Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM) and in the Marshall report, which was published in 2014 and recommended that the same changes be made here. Unfortunately, it, too, has been stalled and disrupted by the constant dysfunction of the Executive system here and the parties that have governed for the last many years. Yes, we are talking about language used in our laws, but it is not simply a question of semantics.”
“I fully support the Minister's amendment to introduce an offence of threatening to disclose private sexual photographs or films, and I absolutely agree with the many organisations that raised issues with the language that is often used to describe that kind of behaviour and the fact that we should now talk about "image-based sexual abuse", which, indeed, has many forms. As highlighted by the Human Rights Commission, image-based sexual abuse should, due to its disproportionate impact on women and girls, be recognised as a form of gender-based violence, and amendment No 5 will strengthen the offence that already exists in law around disclosing private sexual images. I thank the Minister and her Department for including that in the Bill. <BR /> <BR />I will move on to amendment No 6.”
“I would absolutely support a statutory review mechanism being built into it, alongside the power to expand through regulations, and that could be brought forward at Further Consideration Stage. Ultimately, however, I want all children to be protected, no matter what the setting or activity is, when there is someone in a position of trust there. The Minister should put firm proposals to the Committee for us to consider and scrutinise. <BR /> <BR />I will move on to the amendment on threatening to disclose images, which is amendment No 5.”
“<BR /> <BR />The offences in articles 23, 24, 25 and 26 of the Sexual Offences Order 2008 that concern the abuse of trust still require evidence. They still require police investigation. They still require a case file to be referred to the PPS and a decision to prosecute by the PPS, and the onus is on the prosecution to prove the alleged perpetrator's guilt in the courts. Therefore, I find some of what the Department said about the unintended consequences of widening the scope to be unhelpful, and I think that we should be listening much more closely to the children's sector on this and reflecting its concerns in changes to the proposed amendment. <BR /> <BR />There are other possible ways to strengthen the new clause.”
“I thank the Minister for her intervention. I appreciate that this discussion and debate have been going on for a number of months, certainly in Committee. I accept that children and young people have article 8 rights. They have the right to make choices, and I do not want to raise the age of consent, but the point that I will consistently make is that this is not about raising the age of consent. This is about positions of trust in that type of relationship, so I do not accept that a comprehensive framing of abuse of trust in law will lead to healthy relationships between young people being criminalised. I do not accept that it will be challenged under article 8 or that it represents a raising of the minimum age of consent. We are talking about the sexual exploitation of children.”
“The Children's Commissioner stated that she had significant concerns about the position of the Department that further evidence must be provided that children had been sexually abused by adults in positions of trust outside sporting and religious settings before further amendments could be considered. <BR /> <BR />Barnardo's stated:”
“I thank the Minister for her intervention. I have said before in Committee that we do not need to wait for evidence of sexual exploitation of children to occur in other settings where there is an abuse of trust. That is my position on that. <BR /> <BR />The NSPCC's position is also clear. It wants to see children protected no matter what the setting or activity, and it argues that the protection should be based on risk of harm. It stated that, if the proposed amendment were made, adults working in non-statutory settings in a position of trust in areas other than religion and sport would remain outside the law.”
“The question is: why would we not seek to provide that certainty and extend protection now?”
“The Committee heard from a wide range of organisations, as the Chair said, on the Minister's amendment to broaden the scope of abuse of trust in the Sexual Offences Order 2008. There is an extensive list of those issues in the Committee report, and I do not intend to repeat them. However, I reiterate the concerns of the NSPCC, Barnardo's and the Children's Commissioner with regard to the limited scope of the amendment, which will capture only sporting and religious settings. <BR /> <BR />Those organisations made clear that that does not go far enough to protect all children. Strangely, the Department seems to have clearly accepted this assessment, which is why the proposed amendment includes a regulation-making power that will allow it to include other settings in the future.”
“Scotland made causing a person to look at a sexual image without their consent an offence in 2010. We need to take the opportunity that the Bill provides to legislate on that. Again, I understand and acknowledge the comments that the Minister made at Committee last Thursday. I am a bit uncomfortable with pinning all our hopes on Further Consideration Stage, but I look forward to the Committee meeting this week and to some intensive engagement with officials to ensure that a more robust amendment is drafted and tabled as soon as possible.”
“Those proposed amendments were published in 2019, and it is now 2022. It is deeply disturbing to think that a failure to protest or resist when subject to sexual abuse could be considered as a form of consent. The new criminal offences that are set out in clause 1 should be based on consent, given that they are sexual offences. I urge the Minister and her Department to work on the reform of the wider issue. Again, I acknowledge the complex nature of that work. Nevertheless, we should be much closer to implementing the changes proposed by Gillen than we currently appear to be. I would welcome some clarity or an update from the Minister on that. <BR /> <BR />I move to cyber-flashing. My understanding is that the Westminster Government will legislate on that issue soon, meaning that that will become law in England and Wales.”
“I cannot stress enough how important that statement and recommendation is for our criminal justice system. Gillen proposed that the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 should be amended:”
“I accept that the reasonable person element may not be workable, and I look forward to working with clause 1 as drafted at this stage at the Committee meeting this week. <BR /> <BR />I conclude my remarks on clause 1 by reminding the House, the Minister and the Department of the urgent need to address the whole issue of consent and how it is understood in our laws and courts when it comes to sexual offences. As noted by the Gillen review, our definition of consent is:”
“<BR /> <BR />There is no doubt that those issues are highly complex and that care must be taken when attempting to address them, but I am not fully satisfied that, as it stands, the inherent weaknesses in the construction of the offence have been overcome. In Professor McGlynn's view, the solution is not to list more motivations for upskirting and downblousing but to focus on consent. I absolutely agree with that, yet, when we explored that with officials, we were told that it was unworkable. We were also given a suggestion for an alternative to the consent-based approach that included recklessness as to whether the victim suffers distress, alarm or humiliation, which draws on Scots law or Irish law. Ultimately, that was what we decided to pursue.”
“Indeed, Professor Clare McGlynn from Durham University agreed with the common concern among a wide range of organisations that clause 1 as drafted would not effectively deal with the scenario that is similar to a case that we well know here. She advised the Committee that, if the "just for a laugh" defence was not addressed, the Bill would become ineffective. <BR /> <BR />Unsurprisingly, the Committee took that very seriously, but we were given evidence that such a case would be covered. The obvious solution to addressing the practical joke defence would be to include it in the list of purposes, but, of course, that brings the unintended consequence of criminalising behaviour that might otherwise have fallen way beyond what the original intent of the new offence was trying to capture.”
“All of them questioned the narrow scope of the clauses and the motives that the prosecution could rely on.”
“<BR /> <BR />With regard to the upskirting and downblousing offences, I fully recognise the concerns expressed by the Minister at the Justice Committee last Thursday in relation to the proposals. However, it is disappointing that those issues were not resolved long in advance of the debate and before the deadline for submission. Throughout the Committee's evidence gathering, concerns were raised about a potential loophole in the construction of the new offences whereby an alleged perpetrator could effectively acquit themselves by claiming that what they did was simply a joke. Members of the Committee heard from victims, those with extensive knowledge of a case here, trade unions, children and women's sector organisations, and Victim Support NI.”
“I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate on the amendments to the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Bill. Like others, I want to say a huge thank you to all those individuals and organisations that gave evidence to the Committee. Their words, reflections and experience proved to be invaluable, as always, in scrutinising legislative proposals. Much of what we are discussing today is about using that evidence to strengthen the Bill's provisions and making sure that they are working in practice and delivering for those that they are intended to protect. I also welcome the constructive approach taken by the Minister and her Department throughout the Committee's scrutiny.”
“The monitoring equipment was the same as that used by councils and the Department, and the results were independently tested. We did not want to identify breaches, but we did. We identified 28 breaches of national air quality objectives in Belfast and one in north Down. You would expect that to be in a town centre, but no; it was outside a bus stop frequently used by pupils who were going to a local school. <BR /> <BR />Dirty air does not always capture people's attention, because we cannot see it. That is not the case for everything that we breathe, and we breathe every second of every minute of every day, so we need widespread calls for action. We need to monitor more areas —”
“It recommends guideline targets that limit the harm to human health, but our legal limit for PM2·5 is not as strict as the level recommended by the WHO; it is more than double that. Whilst other particulate matter, PM10, is monitored in North Down, at Holywood, PM2·5 is not, and we have no PM2·5 monitoring in Bangor. <BR /> <BR />Frequent exposure to high levels of nitrogen dioxide can cause increased acute respiratory illness, especially in children and those with asthma. We need indoor air quality monitoring too — that is barely referenced in the Department's public discussion document on a clean air strategy for Northern Ireland. In 2019, we in the Green Party did our own air quality monitoring across Belfast and north Down. We installed tubes that monitored nitrogen dioxide around key sites outside schools and health centres.”
“Between 28,000 and 36,000 deaths a year are attributed to long-term exposure, and there is strong evidence that air pollution causes the development of coronary heart disease, stroke, respiratory disease and lung cancer and that it exacerbates asthma, yet we still have no air quality strategy for Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />We have smoke control zones that are not enforced, we have breaches of air quality management areas, and we are not monitoring enough. Particulate matter, which are the tiny particles that cause the most serious health problems, are derived from the burning of wood and oil and from industry and traffic. The WHO says that there is no safe level of exposure to particulate matter (PM) 2·5.”
“My statement is on air quality in Northern Ireland, and I bring to Members' attention a recent publication that showed that officials knew for decades about the seriousness of air pollution in Belfast. We knew in the early 1990s that there was a major problem with air pollution and that emissions needed to be urgently addressed, yet, for over 20 years, it was somehow deemed acceptable that we did not have appropriate legislation in place to tackle it. Dr Gabriel Scally's public health report of 1993 described the air pollution in Belfast as "appalling". <BR /> <BR />It is not acceptable that we are still in this position. Air pollution costs lives and billions of pounds. It is the biggest environmental threat to health in the United Kingdom.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. The legal costs of judicial action came up during the discussion on the moratorium and were raised by a few Members this evening. Will the Minister confirm whether his Department has had any indication of whether there would be any legal challenge if the Bill, or any moratorium or banning of fracking in Northern Ireland in subsequent legislation, were to come in?”
“<BR /> <BR />The Green Party will continue to strongly oppose fracking, drilling, extraction of fossil fuels from mining and putting people's public health at risk for commercial gain. You cannot be in favour of climate action and fossil fuel extraction at the same time. As I say, while the Bill is a start, it falls short, and we have much more to do. The Executive must act, and I plead with the Minister to please release publicly the full Hatch Regeneris report. Ministers must implement the immediate moratorium and bring forward a comprehensive ban on all exploration of, drilling for and extraction of hydrocarbons.”
“The absence of meaningful consultation under the Petroleum (Production) Act (Northern Ireland) 1964, the failure to uphold the rights enshrined in the Aarhus convention, the absence of strategic environmental impact assessments and the absence of management plans for special areas of conservation and other protected areas mean that there are no ecological baselines for the assessment of environmental impacts with the scientific certainty that is a legal requirement under the habitats directive. The former Minister has already accepted that our laws are seriously out of date, yet we still wait for action and for the promised consultation and policy direction.”
“It is shameful, again, that the Executive have not sought the relevant consent and brought forward comprehensive legislative proposals that reflect what the House agreed in 2020. I do not need to list the potential harms to public health that fracking brings. We know about the chemicals, the noise, the pollution, the dangers of releasing certain substances and the detrimental impacts that all those things can have on people's health, not to mention wildlife habitats and our natural environment. <BR /> <BR />As I have stated before in the Chamber, our entire petroleum licensing regime is flawed.”
“Our citizens should not be at the mercy of the market for fossil fuels when it comes to something as essential and significant as transport, energy and the ability to heat and light our homes. Continuing to rely on fossil fuels will mean that we will never come close to meeting our Paris commitments, including the targets being considered under the climate Bills, nor would we be able to meet the huge challenges that climate change will bring. <BR /> <BR />Returning to the specifics of the Bill, it is clearly not enough, but it is a start. I recognise that legislating for offshore exploration and extraction requires the Secretary of State's consent, and I am keen to hear more detail from the Bill's sponsor about the communications and efforts to secure that.”
“The only real energy security is from renewable resources that can generate sustainable green jobs and solve the complex crisis of rising fuel prices that we now find ourselves in the middle of.”
“<BR /> <BR />We also know that large multinational corporations that profit from environmental destruction are adept as shielding themselves from tax obligations and other regulations, and they are remarkably good at funneling profits into the hands of shareholders via offshore accounts. Drilling for fossil fuels is not the way in which to achieve energy security: renewables are.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. I do agree. I would also make similar comments about any potential for gold-mining. <BR /> <BR />That research was commissioned by the previous Minister for the Economy. We were told that it would form the basis for the Executive's adopting an evidence-based policy going forward. However, the evidence is clear that the arguments in favour of fracking do not add up. The report has been quoted online as saying that Northern Ireland is unlikely to achieve the economies of scale and low production costs that would provide a major benefit from lower energy prices. Perhaps, the Minister, in his summing up, will confirm whether that leaked report is, in fact, the correct one.”
“It would appear that that is no longer the DUP's position on shale gas, which is welcome. <BR /> <BR />The carrot of potential investment and economic returns that is dangled in front of our noses is nothing more than a false promise. Even the Hatch Regeneris report — I have not seen it, and I do not think that anybody has — that was talked up so much by the previous Minister, and has yet, as I said, to see the light of day, despite being passed to the Department last summer, appears to be absolutely conclusive in that respect, if what we have read on social media is accurate. If the leaks that emerged at the end of last year are genuine, the report undermines the central argument in favour of drilling, saying that the economic and employment benefits for Northern Ireland would be relatively low.”
“Tamboran has suggested that there are potential benefits through investment, jobs and, bizarrely, energy security. That argument is full of holes. The same argument was made by Arlene Foster, the previous Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, who said:”