Mickey Brady
Newry and Armagh · Sinn Féin · Northern Ireland
“I thank the Minister for his answer. Given that the show identified issues of police integrity, will the Minister now publicly encourage former and current members of the PSNI/RUC to cooperate fully with the Police Ombudsman and the historical investigations unit?”
“No, I will not. I absolutely refute that. I went in with an open mind, as did my party members, associates and comrades, so they can dress it up whatever they want. We went in expecting to hear evidence and expecting to make a decision based on the clear and unequivocal evidence that was given.”
“He was aware of the time spent on the inquiry by the Committee and departmental officials and looked forward to dealing with other issues under his remit. I am glad to hear that. He lamented that the time had not been spent on other important issues. I think that the Committee did as well, but as I said previously, this had to be done.”
“<BR /> <BR />Following consideration of the Committee's draft report, the DUP members of the Committee agreed that it did not in any way reflect their views, and, that being so, a minority report was produced and included in the appendices to the Committee report.”
“Mr Brimstone suffered from selective memory losses all the time. One of the arguments put forward was, "Well, her vote wouldn't have affected the board anyhow, so why would we have said this and that to her?" Why bother ringing her in the first place if her vote did not affect it?”
“As somebody who was involved with his own election campaign, I did not give it much thought. However, from Mr Campbell's point of view, it is my understanding that you probably wanted the report published the week before.”
The complete record
Every one of 250 lines we hold for Mickey Brady, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 5.
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I oppose the motion. As far as my party and I are concerned, Raymond McCreesh was not, is not and never will be a terrorist or criminal. I want to put that on the record. <BR /> <BR />I was born literally within yards of the play park. I come from the very proud, caring and tolerant Ballybot community that has been vilified by people who should know better. It is a close-knit community that accepts people into it. It is tolerant and caring. I watched in astonishment last night as the SDLP group leader, in his mealy-mouthed fashion, expressed concern for the McCreesh family after giving them dogs' abuse over the past God knows how long. It is about time that they caught themselves on. Why do you not just merge with the Ulster Unionists?”
“I assume that there will be a monitoring process to ensure that the efficacy of this situation will prevail and that it will be monitored on a regular basis.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement, and I welcome it. It is good to hear Mr Allister in his usual positive frame of mind and, indeed, to hear the Minister talk about the North of Ireland in reference to Malin Head. <BR /> <BR />I will move to my question. Your statement says that:”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. What are his views on the current strike action in the teachers' unions?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I do not really like making a habit of correcting you, but you did not quote what I actually said to the north-west disability forum. I said — if you had been listening, you probably would have heard it — that anyone on benefits under our control will not be worse off. We do not control tax credits or child benefit; HMRC does. With respect, if you are going to quote me, try to be accurate, please.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I want to make a point about the bilateral meeting. I was with Mr Maskey, so you do not need a tape recorder, because I have a fairly good recollection. One item that was discussed from your point of view was the bedroom tax — nothing else — so, with respect, I still think that I have a reasonably good memory.”
“The reason that families get that amount of money is because they have large numbers of children and they may also have large numbers, unfortunately for them, of disabled children. They have disability living allowance (DLA) and all of that. Freud and his ilk tried to sell it in the House of Lords by talking about £26,000 and £35,000 gross. It is all nonsense; it is subsistence level benefit, and you need to get that into your head. People are not well off on benefits. <BR /> <BR />The underlying principle of welfare reform is to get people back to work. Nobody disagrees with that; it is better to be working than on benefit. Last year, there were 64,000 people unemployed and 4,000 jobs; it does not make a very good equation.”
“I did not realise that it was Mr McCallister talking; I thought that I was listening to Iain Duncan Smith. Very simply, you need to put in context this notion of people getting £30,000. Even the Tories accept that benefit is at subsistence level; it is the lowest income that you can have. It is interesting that we are talking about incentivising people to work; there is a report out today that shows that five companies here in the North were paying below the minimum wage, as were 70 companies in Britain — and those are only the ones that they found out about. <BR /> <BR />I go back to my earlier point about the Social Security Agency being some sort of benevolent fund that gives people money.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I did not realise that he had brought his crystal ball with him today. <BR /> <BR />You are castigating people on benefits, and I have previously heard you talk about handouts as if the Social Security Agency was some sort of charitable institution. I would like to make two points. First, a single person running a household is on £72·40 a week, which is going up to £73·10, and you suggest that people actually choose to do that. The second point is that, when we talk about the health service and various other things, there are unforeseen consequences. If vulnerable people are not protected, surely that will put more pressure on the health service and on all the other statutory agencies. That seems a reasonable point.”
“It is my understanding that the IB113, which is the form that the Department sends out to a GP, is part of a contractual arrangement. It is different if somebody goes to a doctor and says, "I need a note". The IB113 is a form, issued by the Department, that doctors fill in. That is the case, as far as I am aware. I have checked it in the past, and that is what I have been told. It is part of the contractual agreement, but that is the only form that they have to fill in. What we are talking about in respect of medical evidence having primacy may well be a different thing from a consultant. So, I think that you might have difficulty in getting consultants to agree that as part of their contractual arrangement. Some other financial arrangement may have to be addressed.”
“Is that what is meant by "damned by faint praise"?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. You mentioned human rights. There was an Ad Hoc Committee on Conformity with Equality Requirements, as you may or may not remember, of which I was a member; it was the first time that it had been invoked in the Assembly. Your concern about human rights is laudable, but when your leader and you were participating in those negotiations, were you not accepting that the agreements that were reached were not human rights-proofed, or are you saying that you signed up to an agreement that you were not happy with and that you now want to bring in amendments to ensure that it is human rights-proofed? It seems to be a peculiar way of doing things; it is kind of putting the cart before the horse.”
“People can pontificate, to use Mrs Kelly's phrase, all they want, but at the end of the day, as far as we are concerned, it is a good deal for the people that we represent, and we will continue to fight that corner for them.”
“<BR /> <BR />As a republican and member of Sinn Féin, my core value has been to protect the vulnerable. I have been doing it all my working life, and I will continue to do it. We as a party do that as part of our core values. That message needs to go out to the public. We need to put that message forward. This agreement is something that we fought long and hard for. Parties eventually agreed to it. There will be mitigation. We have neutralised the benefit cap. People go on about the bedroom tax, but we have neutralised those. We have ensured that people here do not suffer. If you talk to groups in England, in the voluntary sector or otherwise, you will know that they are extremely envious of what we have here. Disability groups are the same.”
“No, I will not. I am trying to finish off here. <BR /> <BR />I think we should send out a positive message. A lot of negativity and misinformation have been sent out to the public, and there has been a lot of scaremongering. There are people out there who are vulnerable, suffer from disability, are unemployed or are working poor. Unfortunately, the message that some parties are sending out is that it is negative and a total mess. It is not. Obviously, the agreement is not everything that people wanted. We have done what we feel is the best deal that could have been done in the circumstances. It is much better than anything that was put forward over the last couple of years, I have to say. So, I think we should go forward with that positive message.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. Would Atos not have been subjected to that before you signed the contract? I would have assumed that to have been the case. Did you not check that with Atos beforehand? The argument we have, and continue to have, is why you need companies like Atos to come in. In four years, it got something like £300 billion from the British Government and shuffled off, and someone else has to do the job. We are yet to see what Capita may or may not be capable of.”
“Mr Attwood, in one of his last acts as Minister, signed the contract that inflicted — and I use that word advisedly — Atos upon us in terms of the work capability assessment. So, it ill-behoves people to lecture us on what we have or have not achieved when they were the ones who introduced these kinds of issues.”
“<BR /> <BR />One other amendment that I make reference to is amendment No 4. I find it strange, if not bizarre, that we have a party on my left that is talking about protecting the public from privatisation: that is what the amendment is about. Yet, back in 2007-08, when Margaret Ritchie was the Minister for Social Development, she rushed — and I mean rushed — the initial stages of welfare reform through the Assembly under accelerated passage. <BR /> <BR />We had asked for clause 16 to be deleted at the time, because it dealt with privatisation. We were told, "Oh no, it doesn't need to be deleted. It is not going to happen." Well, if it was not going to happen, why did you need it? A very short time afterwards, medical support services were privatised, and we have all seen the results of that.”
“The purpose of that fund is to ensure that nobody loses out, including those who might have lost out under the unchanged Welfare Reform Bill, which was endorsed by some other parties. The supplementary payment fund will ensure that people get help and will not lose out. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 14 from the Minister makes reference to relevant medical evidence. That is a very important issue, because, as someone who for many years did appeals, appropriate medical evidence was often not obtained until the day of the appeal. The provision of relevant medical evidence, as proposed in the amendment, will give decision makers the opportunity to make informed decisions, cut down the number of appeals, and ensure that people who are entitled to benefits get them. That is a very important issue.”
“Again, it was my understanding that there was to be an implementation group that would take that forward. Obviously, some people have broken ranks. Maybe they are the slow learners; I am not too sure about that, but we will presume that that is the case. Possibly, there is just a lack of communication between certain elements of certain parties. One would have to draw that conclusion from what I have listened to in previous debates. We were told that debate was stifled; I would hate to see if it was not stifled, because it might last three days next time. I will try to be as short and to the point as I can be. <BR /> <BR />There was some misunderstanding with Mr Agnew this morning about the different funds. Amendment No 22 from the Social Development Minister deals with the supplementary payment fund.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I reiterate the point I was making before lunch that it is my understanding — I think most people in the Assembly agree — that there was a five-party agreement on 19 December.”
“I thank the Minister for her answer and ask her to ensure that boxing clubs in my constituency, such as St Brigid's, St John Bosco, Sacred Heart at Cuan Mhuire, and clubs such as the Sean Doran Boxing Club in Keady are not forgotten when it comes to investment. Boxing is a sport that, until relatively recently, was not getting the investment that it so deserves.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention, but the Minister quoted his own constituency last week where 32% of the people on the waiting list are looking for one-bedroom accommodation. Whatever the Minister wants or does not want, the Member would maybe need to talk to the Minister about that. <BR /> <BR />The point I was making about the sudden campaign, or crusade, against these cuts is that it has come fairly lately. The Member also mentioned the fact that debate was stifled last week, but if it was stifled it did not stop some people from talking an awful lot, because I had to sit and listen to it for six and a half hours. <BR /> <BR />If it is OK, Mr Speaker, I will continue after the break.”
“As someone who has been dealing with this since I came here in 2007, I have not heard the Member shouting from the rooftops about cuts over the past four years. It seems to be a fairly recent development in the Member's repertoire, for want of a better word.”
“I know that the Member had difficulty dealing with the discretionary fund commissioner and inspectors the last time, which indicates to me, with respect, that he did not have a lot of experience of dealing with the social fund commissioner or, indeed, the social fund inspectors. <BR /> <BR />He seems to be mixing up the two, because the discretionary social fund was giving us, in some ways, the opportunity to be innovative. It was going to include people on low incomes — the working poor, as they are termed. The supplementary payment fund is a completely different thing, which is going to ensure that people do not lose out. With respect, I would say that the Member is scaremongering and sowing seeds of doubt.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention but I think he missed the point. I was saying that there is no suitable alternative accommodation available. I certainly do not support the bedroom tax. In the agreement that was signed on 19 December by the five parties, we neutralised the bedroom tax and the benefit cap. <BR /> <BR />With the Assembly's indulgence, I want to draw the Member's attention to another matter. He talked about the discretionary fund but seemed to mix it up with the supplementary payment fund. It is my understanding that the discretionary fund is a completely different thing, which is to replace the social fund.”
“From what I heard, Mrs Kelly said that the Minister said that there were two options. It was almost like the common selection scheme in the Housing Executive: you were offered two choices, and, if you did not take one, you are out. She did not mention anything about the interpretation of "a significant change" in personal circumstances or "suitable alternative accommodation". I mentioned it in the last debate and I will mention it again. When the Social Development Committee was briefed by the Housing Executive on the so-called bedroom tax, we were told by Housing Executive officials that were it to be introduced, they simply could not cope with it because there was no suitable alternative accommodation. They said that it could take six years or possibly eight years before suitable accommodation would be available.”
“Mr Agnew quoted the Minister from Hansard. In relation to the so-called bedroom tax, the Minister said that there would have to be:”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. It is my understanding that a lot of the issues raised in these amendments were dealt with. It is also my understanding that, eventually, there was a five-party agreement to deal with them. I do not yet know whether Mrs Kelly is up to speed this week. I wonder whether she stayed away from meetings, like her fellow travellers in Newry and Mourne council did, to ensure that she did not have to make any decisions on all this. <BR /> <BR />I am a bit confused by some of the amendments. We have amendments about sanctions that state that people should be informed about sanctions. Those amendments come from a party that wanted two-year sanctions — not one-year or 18-month sanctions; it was quite happy to go with two years. I watched Mrs Kelly on 'The View' on Thursday week past, after the original debate.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I, too, welcome the Minister's statement. Minister, obviously you envisage a specialist medicine fund that will include other conditions. Mr Spratt mentioned MS and other chronic and debilitating conditions. The Chair asked about cost. I am not sure if you gave her a figure, so I am just wondering if you have any projected figure at this time for that specialist medicine fund?”
“I thank the First Minister for his answer. I hope that he does not think that the supplementary question is rhetorical. Can the Minister further confirm that the multimillion pound supplementary payment fund and a range of protections, including top-ups for children with disabilities, adults with severe disabilities and the long-term sick, was included in the final Stormont Castle agreement negotiated between the DUP and Sinn Féin and later endorsed by the SDLP, UUP and the Alliance Party on 19 December? Go raibh maith agat.”
“The social fund inspectors did a very good job, and it seems to me that this particular role will replace a very important post and give an independent dimension to discretionary support. Moreover, and you can agree with this, Minister, if you want, discretionary support will also include people on low income. As far as we are concerned, that is an innovative step.”
“Thank you, Minister, for giving way. I want to clarify something that I said last night. Essentially, discretionary support assistance will replace the social fund, which, in Britain, has been abolished. It has gone to local councils, and there are all sorts of difficulties with that. I do not want to pre-empt your comments on amendment No 52, which is about the discretionary support commissioner, but Mr Agnew seemed to suggest that that was some sort of quango being set up. Perhaps he did not grasp the significance of it. The Social Fund Commissioner was independent and a very important part of the process of ensuring that the most vulnerable had access to community care grants and, in some cases, budget loans, and so on, where the local office had turned people down.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. When I raised the subject last night, you seemed to be very reluctant when you were given the opportunity to rebuff what I had said. You seem to have plenty of knowledge now and said that you were there. Did you not remember it from last night, or did it take you all night to think about what was actually happening?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He is trying to defend the indefensible by giving the impression that the private rented sector is regulated: it is not. We have argued from 2007 for the regulation of the private rented sector. A private landlord can charge whatever he wants. The local housing allowance meant that people at subsistence-level on benefits paid £20, £25 and £30 out of their benefit. Do not try and defend the indefensible and put it out as something it simply is not.”
“There are other areas in HMRC control, like tax credits, child tax credits, child benefit and areas like that, but where we have control over benefits, nobody will lose out. I want to make that point. Go raibh míle maith agat.”
“When people actually started to take community care grant disallowances to the second and third stage with the social fund commissioner, up to 49% of decisions at local offices were overturned. That can only be a good thing. <BR /> <BR />This is not a Bill we would have taken, but there has been good progress in many areas. The other thing that has been looked at apart from people who are unemployed, because we mentioned contributory ESA, is those who are termed the working poor. There are approximately 90,000 here in the North. People on low incomes are going to be helped with the discretionary fund. There are no benefits that we are in control of where people will be worse off. That is true to say.”
“No, the Member will not give way. The bedroom tax has been neutralised and will continue to be neutralised, so that is a good thing for those vulnerable people whom we have all been talking about today. <BR /> <BR />I will move on to the discretionary payments in clauses 51 and 52. Basically, the social fund has been abolished in Britain and has gone to local authorities, some of which service it in a good way, and some of which do not bother. Some of the money that is set aside for that purpose goes to other things. It is good that we had an opportunity to be innovative and have a discretionary fund and a discretionary fund commissioner. That is a very good thing because it gives that independence, much the same as the social fund commissioner.”
“When the Housing Executive's representatives came in to brief the Committee initially about the bedroom tax, they admitted that, if it were to have been introduced the next day, it would take at least six years for the proper houses to be built. <BR /> <BR />We also live in a society that, unfortunately, has housing segregation. I am sure that there are people in north Belfast who could probably move into other areas of north Belfast, but, because of the society that we live in, it becomes next to impossible for them to do so. The mitigation of the bedroom tax has succeeded because there is the supplementary payment fund, which my friends on the left initially signed up not to have.”
“I argue that clause 52, which I think the Minister introduced, is a good clause, in the sense that it extends the period in which a person can get contributory ESA. <BR /> <BR />There has been much talk about the bedroom tax. It does not work; that has been proved in Scotland, where housing associations built loads of houses with three bedrooms. People would not move into them because of the bedroom tax. Housing associations cannot service their loans and are left with empty houses, and some of them will probably end up going to the wall. That is the reality of the bedroom tax. <BR /> <BR />Historically, we have had three- and four-bedroom houses built over many years.”
“His attack on vulnerable families is an absolute disgrace, and he should be totally ashamed of himself. <BR /> <BR />In my experience of working with people on benefits for many years, nobody has ever come in on a Monday morning and said, "I love being on income support". It does not work like that. People do not want to be on benefits, and there are many reasons why they are on benefits. Even the inimitable Lord Freud, when he was here, agreed that we had higher rates of disability in the North and that we had a society that was coming out of conflict. There are many reasons why people are on benefits, and it is not incumbent on any of us to stand here and criticise them for no good reason.”
“My colleague the Chairperson of the Social Development Committee said that 80% of people return to work within a year, but, unfortunately, a lot of cancer patients who have been working become ill, again through no fault of their own, and have to give up work for a limited period. Obviously, they go through very traumatic treatment and may need extra time to get themselves back to a point at which they can return to work. That is essential. <BR /> <BR />It is interesting that none of the people who tabled amendments and criticised various aspects today was prepared to admit that some good was coming out of all this and that concessions and mitigations had been obtained. It is interesting that, in Mr Allister's weird world — in his utopia — nobody would be on benefits, and everybody would be out working, according to him.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. I think that Mrs Kelly had her chance, and I am sure that she will compose something. She will have a long night to think about it, and I am sure that she will come up with some sort of an answer. The reality is that the agreement that was signed by the party on our left did not protect vulnerable people. That message needs to go out, for all the preaching, pontificating and attacks by that party. <BR /> <BR />I will address some of the clauses. Clause 52 deals with contributory ESA. Initially, under the proposed Welfare Reform Bill, that was to last only a year. People who worked for 30, 35 or 40 years and who became ill, through no fault of their own, were going to lose by getting only one year's contributory benefit.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.”
“No, the Member will not give way. You had your chance —”
“No, you will have your chance. Obviously you are more prepared to talk than Mrs Kelly or Mr Attwood at the moment —”
“Those are the people who are pontificating and preaching to us today. The reality is that we would not have introduced a Bill like this. My colleague Fra McCann, who is sitting beside me, and I have been on the Social Development Committee since 2007. In our defence, we have stood resolute against the swingeing cuts of so-called welfare reform. We have been resolute; I challenge anybody to say that we have not.”
“Certainly, a LeasCheann Comhairle. As I said, that agreement contained very little protection for vulnerable people. <BR /> <BR />I will move on to talk about the particular clauses and amendments but, first of all, I will just mention another thing before I forget. There has been a lot of talk about petitions of concern. If my memory serves me right, Mark Durkan, who sat on the Social Development Committee with us, wanted to introduce a petition of concern a couple of years ago that would have killed the Bill. When we had bilateral meetings with his party, it — Mr Ramsey in particular — wanted to kill the Bill. What would that have meant? Direct rule, possibly? The introduction of the full implementation of welfare reform? Student fees? Water charges? Prescription charges and all the other ills and woes that come from a Tory Government?”
“That is OK. Right. You obviously need to think about it, consult and discuss. I understand that.”
“All I can say is that your view from it must be very blinkered. We would like an explanation. Maybe you can explain to the House why you were prepared to sign such an agreement. You talk about protecting the most vulnerable. Are children with disabilities, adults with severe disabilities and people who are going to be sanctioned for two years not vulnerable? Maybe, at some stage, we will get an answer to that question. We look forward to that. If you want to give it now, I am quite happy to give way.”