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 6 of 29.
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was speaking to the communication on the certification scheme. I will bring my remarks to a close very shortly. <BR /> <BR />I was about to speak about Diane Marks, who has sight loss. She specifically outlined the difficulties in accessing information independently. She described her partner's experience of downloading COVID certification as "pulling teeth". From talking to people, I know that they have limited understanding of what they need, how they can access the certificate and where they do and do not need to show it. We are getting calls from the carers of elderly people who are isolating and are not able to get their certificates because they do not know that they can order a physical one.”
“What if you do not have a smartphone, the internet or somebody to ask? <BR /> <BR />How are the Executive communicating and ensuring that older people, those who are vulnerable, those living on their own and those without the tech know what to do, how to do it, and which places may require them to bring their certificate or lateral flow test? How is the Executive's engagement around the regulations with those who are disabled, are deaf or have hearing or sight loss? I observed the first Disabled People's Parliament earlier this month, and I heard, loud and clear, that more and better communication is very much needed. Joe Kenny highlighted the impact of the restrictions on people with sight loss — for example, changes to shopping and accessing supermarkets — and explained how he was locked out of a world that had changed.”
“She has had information on downloading an app; on getting a certificate added to the app if you already have one for international travel; on how, if you have access to the internet and know how use it, you can go online and find out how to apply for a paper certificate; and on what ID she needs. I sent her information on the paper certificate that she could get to enable her to go out for lunch in particular places where she would like to see some of her friends after nearly 18 months in lockdown. The questions remain, however. Does she need to bring her passport? What about her driving licence? Does her electoral ID card stand? She has many questions that need to be answered, and she does not have the internet to go on in order to find out for herself, so she must rely on other people.”
“It has resulted in widespread confusion, and that was not helped by the fact that it was to apply to all premises, then just to those that were licensed, or those in the arts — the cinemas, the theatres, the conference halls. Nor was it a good idea to have the media forewarn people that the scheme was going to be introduced on a certain day and not publish regulations or guidance as to what would be in it until the very end of that same day. <BR /> <BR />I will give an example of why communication needs to be clear and issues around accessibility must be considered. I give you the example of my grandmother. She is 93 years old. She watches the news, listens to 'The Nolan Show' daily — other commentators are available — and reads the papers.”
“The very people who elected us to represent them and take the difficult decisions that are needed to protect public health. <BR /> <BR />Where are the press conferences? Where is the communication strategy — the clear, unified messaging that we need to get through the latest wave of COVID transmission? Those press conferences used to be weekly. I reiterate my continued call, which was never facilitated, for the Executive to hold regular and meaningful press conferences for our children and young people. Their voices must also be heard on this. Where are the statements that were made to the House regarding the Executive's decision-making in response to the pandemic? The Ad Hoc Committee on COVID-19 has not met in eight months. Communication around COVID certification has been abysmal.”
“<BR /> <BR />The debate around this is yet another example of how the Executive are not equipped to deal with a crisis. The divisions and splits between Ministers have been laid bare. They cannot even roll out an agreement that the Executive made only weeks ago — the so-called plan that the First Minister stood in this Chamber and spoke to, and answered questions from Members on, and which took weeks to unravel. I am really confused here, Mr Speaker. We have a party speaking against the motion, asking for more information, suggesting that it is some sort of pet project and saying that the information is not there. Why on earth is the First Minister's signature at the bottom of the plan? Why would you sign your name to something you are not willing to implement? Who suffers from this constant dysfunction in the Executive?”
“A number of weeks ago, I asked the Economy Minister what he intends to put in place to help the sector should it experience issues or be adversely affected. Nothing. I asked the First Minister and the deputy First Minister what they have done. There has been no response. What was, and is, the role of the COVID-19 task force regarding the implementation of support? How many times has it met and engaged with the many voices of the sector that have been affected — not just a call outlining what is going to happen, but actually listening to the practical needs of this industry and addressing its concerns? The sectors that are affected need to be around the table. Speak to the people who work in the industry so that the issues are overcome at the outset, before regulations are implemented.”
“Where is the support for the sector — for the staff who have to implement this, and for the businesses that could lose income because of these regulations? Generally, staff in hospitality, and in other sectors, are not allowed to carry their personal mobile phone with them — that is part of workplace policy — so where are the scanners coming from? I welcome the comments that have been made by the Health Minister, and I completely support him in that regard: a scheme of support should be forthcoming. I urge every Minister to make that possible. As far as I am aware, there is nothing coming from the Executive for the businesses that I have spoken to. <BR /> <BR />Furthermore, there has been no response to questions that I have asked Ministers.”
“They have asked why we do not make everybody do a lateral flow test. <BR /> <BR />So the experiences have been varied, but why are we in a situation in which Executive decisions regarding COVID regulations have resulted in the hospitality sector having to develop protocols to deal with abusive customers and advise staff when it is appropriate to call the police for assistance? Why is there an expectation that they will have to deal with aggressive behaviour? That is not OK. How is a licensed premises, such as a small bar or club that has one staff member or volunteer on a shift, supposed to check at a point of entry? Do they have to stand outside, run in, serve a drink and then go back out again?”
“They have said, yes, it is extra work at the front door, but that it is way better than being closed or being in a position of:”
“Others whom I have spoken to, today and over the weekend, have said that their experience so far is that customers have been receptive when they have tried to implement the regulations before they came into force today. That is welcome. People have been willing to work with it and understand that it is not the staff member's fault, and are happy to show a negative test. I, for one, have been doing that over the weekend, as well as show my COVID cert. They say that customers feel safer being out, and have welcomed the fact that businesses have put in the measures to allow them to get used to them before they were enforceable. Others have said that this kind of certification scheme is better than being shut or subject to further restrictions.”
“I thank the Minister for his intervention. I would certainly welcome that. The question was about the regulations that apply to premises that are licensed but are also takeaways. There is a number of those across my constituency, but they are especially in our cities. They serve alcohol but are primarily takeaways. That was a point of confusion that was brought up with me today. <BR /> <BR />The mixed messaging and lack of consistency from a number of Ministers has meant that it is the staff who are bearing the brunt of people's anger and frustration and are being drawn into ethical debates online. A member of staff in a pub in my constituency said:”
“I would happily take an intervention from the Minister to clarify whether, indeed, legislation was amended over the weekend to say that. When was it amended and why? The sectors are looking for information.”
“Staff in pubs and restaurants already have to deal with very challenging people and circumstances. They do not need to be told that they will be sued or closed for implementing the law. <BR /> <BR />Members will have received an email from Hospitality Ulster today. I know that Mr Frew quoted some of it. I will quote another bit of it. It states:”
“Another establishment received comments, such as, "You should be ashamed of yourselves" and was told that customers would never be back to the restaurant. This morning, I spoke to another business owner, who has bars in Belfast and further afield. I was told that he would not put anything out on social media because he knew what would happen, having seen what others have had to deal with. I could go on, but I think that we get the idea. <BR /> <BR />Businesses should not have to post on social media that they hold no opinion on the matter. They should not have to defend the decisions made by the Executive, try to answer people's questions or spend time, which they should be using to serve customers and deal with staff, explaining how it will work, when the regulations are not even published.”
“<BR /> <BR />Underneath many of those posts are messages of support for the establishments. Other messages are not so kind. One business in my constituency was apparently "enforcing communism" by sharing information on the regulations. Its owners were also told that, if they refused entry to the premises based on those unlawful acts, they would be actively participating in a crime, that their compliance would be its downfall and that they should have their legal team on standby. The business owners were called "lying filth", as well as being accused of receiving thousands of pounds from the Government to enforce COVID certification. If only. Last week, members of staff on the door were told to prepare for legal action to be taken against them personally and were told that they had no moral compass.”
“<BR /> <BR />One of the main points that I wish to make to all Executive Ministers is about the experiences of the workers and staff in the hospitality sector with whom I have engaged on this set of regulations and from my experience as a former worker. <BR /> <BR />I am sure that most people will have seen hospitality businesses posting on social media over the last number of weeks about the changes that the Executive agreed. A number of those posts read the same and set out that, beginning on Monday 29 November, they would be requesting customers to present the necessary documentation to show proof of vaccination or a negative result from a lateral flow test. The posts go on to say that the businesses hold no opinion, as establishments, on the current requirements and that they must comply with them to continue trading.”
“I re-iterate this point and would welcome some clarity if I am wrong, but it appears that the regulations that we are being asked to discuss today are retrospective. They are already law, and the motion is on regulations that have already been bought in. The regulations were not shared with or developed in conjunction with the very people who will be tasked with enforcing them and who will be affected by them the most. <BR /> <BR />A few weeks ago, I received an email from an hotelier in north Down to ask for a copy of the regulations to help him to develop policy and guidance for the workplace. I could not deliver on that because the regulations had not been laid.”
“I say this to the Minister of Health: these comments are not for you but for the Executive as a whole. It is about collective responsibility. There are a number of Ministers in the Executive, and they all need to get on the same page. <BR /> <BR />People have a right to ask, and they have asked, these questions: what are the projections for transmission? What are the quantifiable effects of each restriction or measure on the R rate? What set of criteria was used to determine when COVID-status certificates should be adopted and what sectors they should apply to? Is that based on scientific and medical factors? Can we see and make sense of all the data? How has it been used to develop all policy? Have we learnt nothing from the past year and a half?”
“Those are details that I do not have and will never receive, because Executive documents are not shared with members of the unofficial opposition, who are expected to explain the decision-making of Executive Ministers without sufficient clarity and the transparency that we need before the regulations come into force. <BR /> <BR />It is on that basis that people ask, rightly, for full transparency and accountability. They are in the same position as we are. They have a right to know what data and what information are being used to develop all COVID-19 policies and regulations. That is not new, and it is not specific to today's regulations. From the start of the pandemic, we have all asked for information and effective and clear communication, and I do so again tonight.”
“Every time that COVID-19 regulations were introduced, amended or updated, with changes to restrictions being announced, we had answer questions from those whom we represent. We have all had to do that with a very limited amount of information, if any. A number of us rely on BBC news or Twitter for our updates for constituents. <BR /> <BR />Like many others, I have, for almost two years, defended measures to protect public health, and I will continue to do so. We are mindful, however, that we are not being issued with the full evidence that forms the basis on which the decisions are taken by the five-party Executive. I am asked for documents, papers, minutes of meetings, agendas, proof and evidence. I am asked for the details behind policies and the basis on which the Executive have made their decisions.”
“You will not be surprised to hear that I will focus on the hospitality sector, as Mr Catney did, after I make some other brief remarks. <BR /> <BR />The Green Party does not sit on the Executive. We do not sit on the Health Committee. We do not sit on the Economy Committee. The Green Party has not had the opportunity to scrutinise COVID-19 regulations before they are laid. I have not contributed regularly to the debates, because they have been retrospective. The regulations are already in force. <BR /> <BR />I have, however, had numerous conversations with constituents to try to explain the rationale behind and outworkings of the Executive's policy and subsequent legislation. That has proved difficult at times, and it is worth raising today.”
“Thank you Mr Speaker. You took the words right out of my mouth.”
“I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the regulations. To touch on a point that Mr Wells raised, I may have a different speaking style from his, but I struggle with public speaking, so I have to type everything out. I hope that he does not mind that I have written my speech for today.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. I apologise for interrupting him, but some confusion has been raised today about the regulations applying to premises that are licensed but are takeaways. Can the Minister indicate whether proof of vaccination must be shown at the door or point of entry for those places?”
“However, I would have preferred to see a clinical judgement option in the legislation for the outlined reasons, and although I welcome the Minister's earlier comments, I hope that that can be considered by the Assembly in the next mandate.”
“However, is that not exactly what Scotland is doing and what was recommended, as I have said, in 2018 and 2019? Can the Minister give some detail on the roll-out of that? Is there an intention to publish guidance on the changes proposed in the Bill for clinicians, departmental staff and those working in the social security sector and the community, voluntary and support sectors? As others have done, I thank all those who help people and their families to go through what can only be horrific times as they go through a cruel system. <BR /> <BR />I support the Bill and recognise the need for it as I have been working on this issue for years.”
“Was legal advice sought on that and considered? <BR /> <BR />The EFM states:”
“<BR /> <BR />Currently, if someone is terminally ill and death is expected in eight months, they cannot apply for a DS1500 form. Will this Bill just move the barrier back again? Will we have a situation where someone may have 14 months and cannot meet the year criterion, to put it very crudely? There are many new treatments, particularly for cancer, that extend life for a matter of months, but the diagnosis is still terminal. It would be completely wrong if a dying claimant was required to serve a qualifying period before being entitled to a benefit. How can that be overcome? <BR /> <BR />The explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM) states:”
“That definition is based on clinical judgement and was recommended, in 2018, by the Work and Pensions Committee and the 2019 House of Commons all-party parliamentary group (APPG) for terminal illness, and it was the preferred option of the stakeholder group consulted by DFC. <BR /> <BR />However, we have the DWP and DFC option to extend the definition of terminal illness from six months to 12 months and bring it in line with the NHS definition. Although there is a clear advantage to having the same definition in the social security system and the health system, which will address some of the problems created by a lack of consistency and make it simpler for clinicians to decide on whether special rules should apply, how do we overcome the obstacles that we already face?”
“Given that, why 12 months? I note the Minister's earlier comments, but neither review mentioned moving from six months to 12, and that is certainly not what is going on in Scotland. There was mention of the Scottish model, and that is the option to replace the time-limited definition with the following:”
“Marie Curie Northern Ireland has previously stated:”
“I quote a claimant's experience directly from the 'Personal Independence Payment, A Second Independent Review of the Assessment Process'. It states:”
“It is therefore up to us to decide on the nature of special rules, not the courts. I urge the Assembly to rethink the basis of those awards, even if that necessitates our having the debate again on changing the nature of the rules of PIP. <BR /> <BR />I will highlight some claimants' voices and experiences of the practice of those rules. As others have expressed, I have had two occasions on which constituents were unable to process their PIP application under the six-month rule, because they were "not terminal enough". Both were undergoing cancer treatment. Both were asked to come to the assessment centre, neither was physically or mentally able to do so.”
“and that those choices for decision makers:”
“Crucially, he went onto argue that it was a:”
“In July 2020, a PIP claimant, assisted by the Law Centre Northern Ireland, successfully challenged the legal definition of "terminal illness" at the High Court. The judge ruled that the difference in treatment for terminally ill claimants who cannot reasonably meet the six-month life expectancy was discriminatory and granted leave for a judicial review. That judgement was subsequently quashed on appeal, as Lord Chief Justice Morgan found that allowing people to access the special rules on the basis of a diagnosis of a progressive illness would change the nature of the rules. He stated that it:”
“In 2018, Walter Rader's review was published. It made a series of recommendations for the Department for Communities to consider. The review found that there was a lack of trust in the assessment process and that fragmentation in the entire system could impact negatively on people who try to apply for PIP and on those who support them. Recommendation 6 stated that the clinical judgement of a medical practitioner should be enough to allow people to apply for PIP through the SRTI and that the six-month time limit should be removed. <BR /> <BR />Marie Cavanagh's second review of the PIP assessment process, published in 2020, also recommended that the clinical judgement of a medical practitioner indicating that the claimant has a terminal illness should be sufficient to allow special rules to apply.”
“It is illogical that a shorter award be made for a terminal condition than for a progressive one. <BR /> <BR />The Bill is a short one that makes specific changes across a number of social security payments if a person is terminally ill or suffering from a progressive disease and if that person's death as a consequence of that disease can be reasonably expected to be — now — within 12 months. Although I welcome the changes that the Bill seeks to bring, I, like others, question the 12-month definition. In April 2018, the Scottish Government announced that they would seek to remove the six-month timescale, with no limit set on how long patients had left to live before their condition was considered to be terminal. It would be up to medical practitioners to deem a condition suitable to be fast-tracked, not a timeline.”
“<BR /> <BR />The vast majority of people who claim under special rules have been diagnosed with terminal cancer, and only 40% of non-cancer patients are formally identified as near the end of life at the time of their death, according to a 2016 study in Scotland. More recently, according to the then Minister of State for Disabled People, Health and Work in 2018, 40% of PIP recipients who were claiming under special rules lived for more than a year. There is also a reported lack of consistency, as clinicians differ in whom they judge to be eligible for special rules, and there are issues with the length of awards, as those that are made under SRTI are for three years, but anyone who survives past three years then has to reapply. PIP awards for progressive conditions are normally made for 10 years, with a light-touch review after that.”
“I support the Bill's passing Second Stage. We discussed the matter in the Chamber last year, and I am glad that the legislation has reached the House. We all know that having the so-called six-month rule alongside the entire PIP process has caused major problems for many people, both here and across the rest of the UK. We have had two reviews now tell us what needs to change. I am glad that part of the problem has been addressed in the Bill. As we know, however, the main concern about the current rules for terminal illness and social security is prognostic uncertainty, especially for non-cancer conditions.”
“I thank Mr Allister for giving way. I just want to clarify what may be a technical point about the interpretation of clause 6(1). It is in relation to your comments about clause 6(3). I appreciate that Members have given examples of hypotheticals, but would there not need to be a person and a dog in pursuit for that to be met?”
“It is not countryside management, and just because something was once an acceptable thing to do does not make it legitimate today. Therefore, I am pleased to support the Bill at Second Stage.”
“However, I understand the need to focus on the Bill, given its purposes and the timescale available to us in this mandate. <BR /> <BR />I believe that fox hunting, stag hunting and hare coursing have no place in a civilised society. We need to go further on a lot of these barbaric practices and put a stop to them. I do not accept that this Bill will ruin anyone's way of life, and hypothetical arguments around pest control do not hold sway; they are simply not rooted in fact. Hunting with dogs has no place in our society. Seeing wild animals tortured and killed in such a cruel way should not be considered a sport or deemed to be entertainment. As we heard from Mr Lyttle, the arguments about controlling the fox population do not stand.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is worth mentioning in this debate the possibility of a ban on hunting with snares. That is something for future consideration and legislative change. Snaring is a cruel and painful practice, which causes unnecessary suffering to animals. The Welsh Government recently announced their intention to introduce a ban, and I believe it is time for Northern Ireland to follow suit. I raised that with Minister Poots last month, but I am disappointed that he has no immediate plans to reform the legislation to ban the sale, manufacture and use of restraints in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Similarly, the debate is an opportunity to raise the need to strengthen and enforce the Wildlife Order and the legislation on animal welfare, which is completely lacking. It is also an opportunity to call for an end to badger baiting.”
“Again, perhaps that is something that the Bill sponsor or the Committee can look at to make sure that it is obvious to the reader and clearly understood in the explanatory and financial memorandum. Maybe the Bill sponsor will take the suggestion of a friendly amendment that the Department must produce guidance on clause 4, as it is quite important for people to understand the legislation. <BR /> <BR />It is worth noting that the Bill includes a ban on trail hunting that does not already exist in the rest of the UK, and that is because trail hunting, as we know, has been used as a cover for actual hunting in England. It is welcome that the Bill closes that loophole. I will answer Mr Buckley's question: drag hunting is where artificial scents are laid, and it is permitted under this Bill.”
“<BR /> <BR />As many Members will know, there has been a lobby against this Bill, and many constituents have raised concerns about its scope. However, for me, the Bill is tight. It will not criminalise a situation where a dog runs after or follows a mammal or an animal when a person is engaged in other activities such as angling. I do not see that in the Bill at all. It is my understanding that that does not constitute an offence under the Bill, but of course should the Member want to give solid clarity on that matter, those who have raised such concerns will welcome that. <BR /> <BR />I raised the matter of the exemptions in clause 4 with the Bill sponsor, who explained that there would be a loophole if all the conditions were not required to be met. I have been assured that all the conditions in clause 4 must be met.”
“As a member of the Justice Committee, I look forward to commenting on the Bill as we outline amendments. <BR /> <BR />If the Bill passes its Second Stage, I would encourage the Committee to look at the resourcing and number of animal welfare officers in Northern Ireland. It is a matter that many of us have discussed and raised, not only on constituency matters but in relation to the inadequate resources that are in place to tackle puppy farming. Perhaps the Committee can look at that too — not that I want to give the Committee any more work to do. However, should the Bill pass Second Stage, it is something to consider and discuss with local government and the Justice Minister, as it will need to be resourced.”
“We have also discussed puppy farms, licensing and the role of local councils. I raise that for the purposes of clause 4, which, as well as clause 6, has caused some debate. Previously, I discussed with the Member whether he had considered licensing prescribed areas in those clauses. I discussed with him whether local councils could handle and be part of that to take the pressure off the PSNI, which seems to have come up as another excuse to vote against the Bill at Second Stage. Under clause 4, can there be appropriate monitoring of hunts when they take place? How do we ensure that public land is effectively monitored and that the law is enforced? It brings us back to the question of whose task is the enforcement of that, and the Member has outlined a role for the PSNI and the criminal justice system.”
“According to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), a poll that was carried out by Survation in 2019 found that the overwhelming majority of the Northern Ireland public want to see the hunting of deer, foxes, hares and rabbits with dogs made illegal. As Mr Blair outlined, 78% of respondents to his consultation said that the hunting of, searching for, coursing of, capturing of or killing of wild mammals with dogs should be banned here. Public opinion is strong on the matter, and it has clearly strengthened in recent years. <BR /> <BR />I will touch on a few things in the Bill. I thank the Bill sponsor for meeting me prior to Second Stage and for his engagement and work on the Bill with the all-party group on animal welfare. He will be aware of our discussions on the need for enforcement.”