Aoife Finnegan
Newry and Armagh · Sinn Féin · Northern Ireland
“I welcome the opportunity to speak on Second Stage of the Fisheries, Aquaculture and Water Environment Bill. Sinn Féin recognises the need to modernise the legislation governing our fisheries and water environment.”
“Those who deliberately pollute our waterways should be held accountable, but enforcement alone will not resolve the underlying causes of poor water quality. If we are serious about restoring our rivers, lakes and waterways, we must continue to invest in waste water infrastructure.”
“Approximately half of respondents to the Department's consultation on the policy proposals expressed the view that the impact assessments accompanying the consultation did not adequately consider the potential impacts of the proposals. That is a significant concern and should not be overlooked.”
“It is one of the reasons for many victims never coming forward and for others withdrawing before their case reaches trial. That should concern every one of us. Clause 26 is therefore a welcome and important step forward.”
“They are asked why they had not reported it sooner; whether they had been drinking; what they were wearing; or whether previous relationships somehow diminish their credibility. No victim should ever feel that they are on trial, yet, for too many survivors, that has been their lived experience.”
“Catalysed by the infamous rugby rape trial, it exposed uncomfortable truths about how victims were treated, and it challenged us to build a justice system that delivers justice without compounding trauma.”
The complete record
Every one of 362 lines we hold for Aoife Finnegan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 8.
“Our responsibility is to ensure that the justice system honours that courage, not with suspicion or humiliation but with protection, respect and justice. That is the standard that survivors deserve, and it is the standard that the Assembly must strive to achieve.”
“Justice must always be fair, but fairness cannot come at the expense of a victim's dignity. It cannot mean forcing survivors to relive their trauma or allowing myths and stereotypes to undermine their credibility. <BR /> <BR />The justice system should never become another source of harm. The true test of the legislation will not be how many clauses it contains; it will be whether more survivors feel able to come forward, whether fewer victims abandon the justice process through fear of re-traumatisation, and whether those who seek justice leave our courts believing that they were treated with dignity, compassion and respect. Every survivor who reports a sexual offence demonstrates extraordinary courage.”
“It is one of the reasons for many victims never coming forward and for others withdrawing before their case reaches trial. That should concern every one of us. Clause 26 is therefore a welcome and important step forward. By allowing complainants to make representation before their private records are disclosed and by providing independent legal representation during those applications, the Bill recognises that victims have rights too: rights to privacy, dignity and respect. <BR /> <BR />Sinn Féin welcomes those proposals but will scrutinise whether they go far enough. The Committee will need to ensure that the legal tests governing disclosure are sufficiently robust to prevent unnecessary intrusion into a complainant's private life, while preserving the defendant's right to a fair trial.”
“They are asked why they had not reported it sooner; whether they had been drinking; what they were wearing; or whether previous relationships somehow diminish their credibility. No victim should ever feel that they are on trial, yet, for too many survivors, that has been their lived experience. <BR /> <BR />We also know that one of the greatest barriers to reporting sexual violence is the fear that deeply personal information will be exposed in court. Counselling records, medical records and other private information can become the subject of legal argument, leaving victims feeling as though every aspect of their life is under scrutiny. For someone already carrying the trauma of sexual abuse, that prospect can be overwhelming.”
“Catalysed by the infamous rugby rape trial, it exposed uncomfortable truths about how victims were treated, and it challenged us to build a justice system that delivers justice without compounding trauma. Undoubtedly, progress has been made, but, from the conversations that I continue to have with constituents, victims, survivors and advocacy groups, it is clear that the work is far from finished. <BR /> <BR />For victims of sexual violence, the trauma does not end when the abuse ends. For many, it begins again when they enter the criminal justice system. Survivors speak of the court process as a second ordeal and one in which they face victim-blaming, victim-shaming and outdated myths that have no place in any courtroom.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. I echo other Members' comments about Geraldine Hanna, the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime, and her team. I was very privileged to be involved in the research, and the subsequent report highlighted what victims and survivors go through when in court, how that re-traumatises them in many ways and the changes that must take place. I know that a lot of work went into that. <BR /> <BR />Clause 26 strengthens protections for complainants in proceedings involving serious sexual offences. The Gillen review was a landmark moment in reforming how serious sexual offence cases are dealt with.”
“We look forward to hearing more about the engagement that has taken place, and that will continue to take place, with counterparts in the South and with the Loughs Agency to ensure that the legislation supports a coordinated approach to protecting our shared aquatic environment. <BR /> <BR />Sinn Féin supports the modernisation of fisheries legislation but wants to ensure that it is underpinned by robust scrutiny, meaningful stakeholder engagement, continued investment in waste water infrastructure and effective cooperation across the island. If we achieve that balance, we can deliver legislation that protects our environment, while supporting our fishing communities and future generations.”
“Protecting water quality requires that Departments work together to combine strong environmental regulation with the infrastructure investment that is needed to prevent pollution before it occurs. <BR /> <BR />Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I will touch on cross-border cooperation. The policy memorandum refers to mechanisms to address east-west divergence. That is welcome, but, as the Bill progresses, we will want to see what proactive action DAERA intends to take to ensure that there is North/South alignment. We have said in the Chamber, time and again, that our waterways do not recognise borders. River catchments and stocks are shared, and significant areas are regulated by the Loughs Agency.”
“Those who deliberately pollute our waterways should be held accountable, but enforcement alone will not resolve the underlying causes of poor water quality. If we are serious about restoring our rivers, lakes and waterways, we must continue to invest in waste water infrastructure. Simply moving money from one public body to another through fines will not, on its own, deliver cleaner waterways: prevention must remain our priority. I welcome the commitment from the Minister for Infrastructure, Liz Kimmins, to work collaboratively with Minister Muir on that issue. The Infrastructure Minister has already allocated more than £500 million to NI Water, which represents almost 40% of the Department for Infrastructure's non-ring-fenced budget. That demonstrates a significant commitment to upgrading waste water infrastructure.”
“Approximately half of respondents to the Department's consultation on the policy proposals expressed the view that the impact assessments accompanying the consultation did not adequately consider the potential impacts of the proposals. That is a significant concern and should not be overlooked. I look forward to hearing, as the Bill progresses, how the Department intends to address those concerns. When stakeholders raise legitimate issues through a consultation, Departments should be prepared to undertake further analysis, where necessary: that strengthens legislation and builds confidence in the process. Sinn Féin will explore that issue further during the Committee's scrutiny of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />The Bill strengthens enforcement powers and increases penalties for a range of offences.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak on Second Stage of the Fisheries, Aquaculture and Water Environment Bill. Sinn Féin recognises the need to modernise the legislation governing our fisheries and water environment. Much of the current framework is decades old and does not reflect the environmental challenges that we face today or the need to protect biodiversity while supporting our fisheries and aquaculture sectors. <BR /> <BR />We support the Bill's broad principles. Protecting our waterways is not only an environmental priority; it is vital to our rural communities, our economy and our tourism sector and to future generations here. However, we believe that a number of issues will require careful scrutiny as the Bill progresses through its Committee Stage. <BR /> <BR />I will address the economic impact assessments first.”
“I welcome the update from the Minister on addressing the backlog. Minister, will you commit to working with the LCJ to address the backlog and to keeping the House updated on progress?”
“<BR /> <BR />We recognise that public money must always be spent responsibly and that legal aid systems should operate effectively. However, any reform must be carefully considered to ensure that it does not create additional barriers for those who rely on those services. Sinn Féin believes that any change to legal aid arrangements must protect fairness, maintain access to justice and ensure that the most vulnerable are not disadvantaged. For those reasons, we oppose new clause 27A as drafted. <BR /> <BR />Apologies that I was not ready for you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.”
“We also heard evidence during the Committee's scrutiny from members of the legal profession, who indicated that, in some cases, the only reason that they can continue to take on legal aid clients is because private clients effectively subsidise that work through substantially higher fees. Not every practice is in a position to do that, and that raises wider concerns about the sustainability of legal aid provision and the availability of representation for those who rely on it. <BR /> <BR />Those examples demonstrate the importance of approaching any changes to legal aid with caution. If reforms further restrict access or reduce the availability of legal representation, it is often vulnerable victims and those with the least means who suffer the consequences. Access to justice must remain a practical reality, not merely a principle.”
“The result is that some of the most vulnerable people in our society face additional barriers while attempting to access justice and secure legal representation.”
“The issue also links directly to the concerns that Sinn Féin has consistently raised about access to justice in the family court system. <BR /> <BR />The Assembly last month debated Sinn Féin's motion on protections against coercive control and abuse through the courts, in which we highlighted the experiences of victims who are subjected to repeated and often unnecessary court proceedings as a continuation of abusive behaviour. During that debate, the Minister acknowledged that changes were required in order to better support victims navigating the justice system. Although legal aid is available in certain domestic abuse cases, we have heard significant concerns that many victims either are unaware of their entitlements or face processes that are lengthy, complex and difficult to navigate.”
“Sorry, I was not ready, Mr Deputy Speaker. <BR /> <BR />Sinn Féin recognises that access to justice is one of the fundamental principles in any fair and democratic society. Legal rights have little practical meaning if individuals cannot effectively exercise them because they lack the financial means to obtain legal representation. The principle of equality before the law demands that justice should be available to everyone, regardless of their income and personal circumstances. <BR /> <BR />Legal aid plays a vital role in supporting some of the most vulnerable people in our society, including children, victims of domestic abuse, individuals who are experiencing poverty, people with disabilities and people who are facing complex legal proceedings.”
“I am disgusted that the Education Minister, who is supposed to represent children and protect them, is standing up and doing quite the opposite from his speaking notes today.”
“It is fair to say that we support the principle of the Bill, but if you would like to get feedback from Sinn Féin in the future, the canteen is probably not the place to get that feedback. Come to me directly, and we can outline that. Agreements were made in the Committee, but we had further discussion, and you had further discussion, and we had hoped that those changes could have been made to make the Bill workable. I hope that you will appreciate that.”
“That approach will be reflected in our voting position today. We will support the amendments and clauses that will provide councils with effective and workable powers. Where, however, the amendments do not adequately address our concerns about legal certainty, financial exposure, operational capacity and the absence of dedicated funding, we will abstain.”
“The answer is clear: councils and, ultimately, the ratepayer. As elected representatives, our responsibility does not end with passing legislation that looks good on paper. Our responsibility is to ensure that legislation works in practice and that working people and families are not left picking up the bill for responsibilities that should be properly funded by central government. The Assembly's responsibility is not simply to pass amendments but to ensure that those amendments deliver legislation that works, is properly funded and gives councils not just the powers to act but the resources, legal certainty and practical support to use those powers effectively.”
“I have given way many times, Minister, so, at this stage, unfortunately, I will not. <BR /> <BR />The Minister had the opportunity to bring forward a framework that would genuinely empower councils to transform neglected areas and tackle long-standing dereliction. We share the ambition behind the Bill — we absolutely do — but the practical foundations required to make that ambition a reality have not been fully put in place. The Minister has recognised some of the concerns raised by the local government sector and has tabled amendments in response. However, recognising concerns is not the same as resolving them. The central question remains: when councils are required to intervene, thereby incurring significant costs, and when those costs cannot be recovered, who will carry the burden?”
“For that reason, Sinn Féin will not support the SDLP's amendments, although we get the rationale behind them. <BR /> <BR />I return to the Minister's overall approach. After almost a decade since the original consultation, councils should have been presented with legislation that was not only ambitious in its intentions but properly funded, legally robust and capable of being delivered in practice.”
“Fair enough. I have made my point clear. <BR /> <BR />I will address the amendments that other Members have tabled. Sinn Féin has considered each amendment carefully. Our position throughout the process has been guided by one simple question: does the amendment make the legislation more workable, more effective and more capable of being delivered by councils in practice? While we recognise the intention behind the SDLP's amendments, we do not believe that they address the fundamental concerns identified by the local government sector around funding, legal certainty, operational capacity and deliverability. In some cases, the amendments risk creating further administrative responsibilities for councils without addressing the underlying issue of resources.”
“In other jurisdictions where comparative powers are in place, local authorities are provided with dedicated resources and funding to ensure that the powers can be exercised effectively and consistently. If we are serious about tackling dereliction, we cannot simply transfer responsibility from central government to local government and assume that uncertain cost recovery mechanisms will make the system pay for itself. A successful model requires investment, proper resourcing and a realistic understanding of the challenges that councils face on the ground. Without that support, the financial and operational pressure will fall on councils and, ultimately, on the ratepayer.”
“I thank you for your intervention. That conversation certainly needs to be had. I appreciate your point. <BR /> <BR />As I said, the concerns extend to the wider operational framework, which includes information-gathering powers, entry powers, fixed penalties and departmental guidance. Those provisions will require significant officer time, specialist expertise and increased administrative capacity. They will also, inevitably, create greater public expectation that councils will intervene. Despite placing those additional responsibilities on councils, DAERA has shown no commitment to provide dedicated core funding to allow councils to deliver the functions effectively. Unfortunately, that is where the Bill falls short.”
“Evidence from Building Control professionals suggests that remediation works can cost between approximately £80,000 and £90,000 in standard cases and rise to approaching £2 million in more complex cases. Against that backdrop, some owners may be prepared to absorb a £500 fixed penalty rather than treat it as an incentive to carry out necessary works.”
“It highlights evidence from Building Control professionals who have questioned whether councils will, in practice, always be able to recover their costs and warned that councils could ultimately face significant financial liabilities. <BR /> <BR />The report also identifies the potential scale of the challenge, with approximately 34,500 vacant properties across the North. Of course, the fact that a property is vacant does not automatically mean that it is dilapidated or dangerous. However, if even a small proportion require intervention, councils could be dealing with thousands of additional enforcement cases. That raises serious questions around staffing, expertise and capacity. The report also raises concerns about whether the proposed fixed penalties would provide a sufficient deterrent.”
“For that reason, while we recognise the intent behind the amendments and the objective of creating a stronger enforcement framework, we remain concerned that the necessary protections and resources are not in place. Therefore, we will abstain on some of the amendments. <BR /> <BR />The report by the Assembly's independent Research and Information Service (RaISe), which was prepared by Dr Ryan Kee, is particularly relevant to the debate. It is important to state that the report does not recommend supporting or opposing the Bill, but it provides independent evidence that reinforces many of the concerns raised by the local government sector. It challenges the assumption that the legislation will be cost-neutral.”
“I absolutely appreciate that, and that is why we agree with this in principle. I see that in Newry and Armagh every day of the week, and people come to my constituency office to express their frustration. However, we need to make this workable. It is not a huge ask for the Minister to listen to those who will have to implement the Bill's provisions and make those changes, and we have the opportunity to do that. <BR /> <BR />We recognise that the Minister's amendments in this area are an attempt to address some of the concerns raised during the Committee's scrutiny of the Bill. However, acknowledging a problem is not the same as resolving it. The Minister's amendments do not fully address the wider concerns about cost recovery.”
“There will be cases that involve unknown ownership, complex ownership arrangements, disputes around responsibility or circumstances where owners simply do not have the financial means to repay the costs incurred. Having the legal power to recover costs does not mean that those costs will always be recovered in practice. Where councils are unable to recover those costs, the financial burden does not simply disappear. Ultimately, it falls on the council and, therefore, the ratepayer. As elected representatives, it is our responsibility not only to improve our communities but to protect the public purse and stand up for and put money in the pockets of working people and families.”
“Thank you for your intervention as well. I could not agree with you more. I welcome the fact that the Minister is trying to tackle the issue, but there are other issues, and that is what the scrutiny process is about, as he knows. Although his amendments are technical in nature and cover some of the gaps, there are fundamental flaws in the Bill that we have to scrutinise, and doing so is my job. <BR /> <BR />The most significant concerns about the amendments that remain relate to cost recovery, liability, enforcement, responsibilities and the practical operation of the new framework. The Department's position has been that councils will be able to recover costs from property owners. However, the practical reality is more complicated.”
“While we support the objective of providing councils with stronger powers to address severely neglected and derelict buildings, those are complex decisions that involve private property rights, significant enforcement action and the potential for lengthy legal challenges. <BR /> <BR />The local government sector raised concerns about councils' not having the level of legal certainty, protection and operational support that is required to exercise these powers with confidence. For that reason, while we support the objective behind the powers, we are not convinced that the amendments before us today provide the necessary safeguards, legal certainty and practical framework that are required for councils to exercise them with confidence.”
“We will support those amendments where they improve the workable provisions of the Bill. However, where amendments relate to areas in which significant concerns remain around legal certainty, financial exposure, operational capacity and the absence of dedicated funding, we are not satisfied that the underlying issues have been addressed, and we will abstain on those. <BR /> <BR />Having considered the Bill in its entirety, Sinn Féin has sought to take a balanced and evidence-based approach. We will support the provisions that provide councils with stronger, workable powers to tackle dangerous and neglected properties. There are particular amendments that relate to the most significant intervention powers that are available to councils, including requiring substantial remedial works and, in certain circumstances, demolition.”
“As the Bill progressed and detailed engagement took place with the local government sector, significant concerns emerged around legal uncertainty, financial liability, operational capacity and practical implementation. It is important to recognise that the local government sector did not enter the process seeking to oppose the Bill. It engaged constructively with the Department and sought to improve the legislation through amendments. Its objective was to take a Bill with significant shortcomings and make it workable enough to deliver the policy intention. However, despite that engagement, many of the fundamental concerns remain unresolved. I acknowledge that the Minister has tabled a number of amendments in response to concerns that were raised during our scrutiny.”
“However, our support at that stage was not the end of the conversation.”
“<BR /> <BR />One of the greatest frustrations in the debate is that there was a genuine opportunity to introduce legislation that would finally provide councils with the tools that they have sought for many years in order to tackle dangerous and neglected buildings. The Minister had the benefit of a consultation process — it began in 2016, a decade ago, as has already been mentioned — of extensive, albeit late, engagement with the local government sector and the expertise of those who will, ultimately, have the responsibility to implement the powers. At Committee Stage, Sinn Féin supported the progression of the Bill, because we recognise that the current legislative framework is outdated and councils need stronger powers to address dangerous, neglected and dilapidated properties.”
“At the outset, I want to be clear: no one in the Chamber disputes the impact that dangerous, neglected and dilapidated buildings have on our community. Every Member in the Chamber has dealt with residents who are frustrated by buildings that have been allowed to deteriorate and that attract antisocial behaviour; damage the appearance of our towns and villages; and, in some cases, present genuine risk to the public's safety. We have heard stories about that from Members around the House. Our communities have waited for far too long for meaningful action in this area. The objective behind the Bill is, therefore, one that Sinn Féin absolutely supports.”
“I thank the Member for taking an intervention. He highlights very important points. The Bill is important. We all support dealing with dilapidation and agree that we must do it. The Minister highlighted in his intervention that a consultation had taken place. However, that consultation was 10 years ago. Does the Member agree that it was too long ago and that it was important to have had more communication with the sector before introducing the Bill?”
“Minister, last month, you attended the signing of a contract for a £500 million investment in new, faster and more modern Enterprise trains in Grand Central station. The hourly service has led to a significant increase in passenger numbers using that service, with up to 200,000 passengers a month boosting the thriving all-island economy and footfall in Belfast city centre and beyond. Given the huge success of the Enterprise service, will you work with the Dublin Government to ensure that more rail projects benefit from Shared Island Fund investment?”
“I appreciate the response that the Member got, because there has been a lot of discussion about the role that Shared Environmental Services plays, about the need to get clarity on decisions that it makes, or does not make, and about the planning hold-ups that it causes. Is the Minister exploring any reforms of, or improvements to, how Shared Environmental Services engages with the Department on planning matters?”
“After 50 years of obstruction, concealment and —”
“<BR /> <BR />The courage, dignity and determination shown by Eugene Reavey and his family over the past five decades has been extraordinary. They have never given up, and they have never stopped demanding the truth about who murdered their loved ones and why crucial information was concealed. Last week, the British Prime Minister said that the state must hold itself to the highest standards. The evidence heard in court last week shows just how badly the British state failed that test. The Reavey family deserves truth —.”
“The court heard how a British Army-issued Sterling sub-machine gun — the British Army said that it was stolen from a UDR base — was used in the murders of the Reavey brothers and linked to a series of other killings. It also heard evidence pointing once again to the involvement of serving members of the UDR and the RUC alongside loyalist paramilitaries. Perhaps most shocking of all is that the Ministry of Defence held information relating to the disappearance of that weapon and failed to disclose it in previous investigations. Families were told that investigations had been completed, reports were written and conclusions were reached, yet vital evidence remained buried in state files. That was not administrative oversight; it was information held by the state and withheld from those seeking the truth.”
“There is the same sectarian mindset and the same belief that fear and violence can be used to terrorise communities. The difference in the Reaveys' case is that those responsible were not only loyalist gunmen but individuals linked to the very state forces supposedly charged with protecting the public. <BR /> <BR />Fifty years later, the Reavey family are still fighting for the truth. What has emerged in court is nothing short of scandalous. The court heard that crucial documents relating to the Glenanne gang and the weapons used in those murders were withheld from previous investigations, including those of the Historical Enquiries Team and Operation Denton. Information that should have been available to investigators was kept hidden for decades.”
“Those were the words of 17-year-old Anthony Reavey as he recalled the night on which his family were slaughtered by the notorious Glenanne gang. Within moments, Anthony and his brothers John Martin and Brian were caught in a hail of gunfire as masked men burst into their home in Whitecross on 4 January 1976. John Martin and Brian were killed, and Anthony, having witnessed the horror unfold before his eyes, would later succumb to his injuries. Three innocent lives were stolen because they were Irish and Catholic. From listening to Anthony's account, you could be forgiven for thinking that he was speaking about the hatred and violence that we have witnessed on our streets in recent days. The targets may be different, but the actors are the same.”
“Importantly, the amendment sends a clear message that domestic abuse needs to be understood in all of its forms. It demonstrates a willingness to listen to victims and learn from evidence, and it strengthens protections where gaps have been identified. As legislators, we have a responsibility to ensure that our laws reflect the lived experiences of those affected by abuse. This amendment will help to achieve that object, and, for those reasons, Sinn Féin is pleased to support the amendment.”
“An abuser will use whatever they believe will inflict the greatest emotional harm. That is why threats against or acts of cruelty towards animals must be recognised for exactly what they are: another tool of coercion and control in an abusive relationship. It also indicates how dangerous these abusers are in that nobody is safe in their presence. The amendment recognises that reality and acknowledges that threats against animals can be every bit as intimidating and controlling as other forms of abuse and should be considered within the legal framework accordingly.”
“<BR /> <BR />At its core, domestic abuse is about power, control and intimidation. Abusers will seek to exploit whatever means are available to them in order to cause fear and distress to their victim and to maintain control over them. It does not matter whether that abuse is directed towards a person, a horse, a dog or any other animal that a victim loves or cares for.”
“He understood the bond that she had with her pet and exploited that bond to cause further distress, maintain power over her and continue the abuse long after she left the relationship. It was a stark example of how perpetrators can weaponise not only relationships and children but family pets to manipulate, intimidate and emotionally harm their victims. Evidence from domestic abuse organisations shows that victims may delay leaving abusive relationships because they fear what will happen to their pets if they do. Others remain silent because threats against animals are used as a means of intimidation. They are not isolated incidents; they form part of a wider pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour that can have devastating consequences for victims and their families.”