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 5 of 5.
“I thank the Minister for her answer. Can she outline how the dual aims of child development and childcare solely for reasons of the labour market will be taken forward under the banner of a childcare strategy?”
“The benefit cap is predicated on the south-east of England, not on the large families here who will suffer most.”
“— on his abacus. Who knows? <BR /> <BR />'The Guardian' has leaked Government papers — British Government papers — in which they admit that at least 100,000 children are being pushed into poverty by the benefit cap alone.”
“So, you can play with the figures — I see that the Finance Minister has been kind enough to join us; he was probably upstairs working out more figures —”
“When you look at the effects — for instance, the Minister mentioned the severe disability premium — you see that it is already costing some adults in Britain £58 a week. Obviously, for people on limited incomes, that is huge. There is a myth that all people on benefits are well off, and I want to deal with that now. Could any of you live on £72·40 as a single householder on income-based ESA or jobseeker's allowance? Could you feed and clothe yourself, run a household and pay for electricity and all of that? I very, very much doubt it, because it is simply not possible. Benefits are at subsistence level, and any cuts will take them below that. It is interesting that the Tories — your friends — have already frozen benefit increases at 1% a year from 2013 to 2016. That is without these cuts being imposed.”
“— dealing with my constituents and asking them about —”
“I am sure that you do. I was out on Saturday —”
“Michael Copeland, in fairness, mentioned that approximately 67,000 people are unemployed, with 4,000 jobs on offer. Let us start to try to create jobs. Maybe that will be a solution. Nobody disagrees with the underlying principle of so-called welfare reform that people are better off in work than on benefit. <BR /> <BR />I am wondering whether Mr Humphrey has engaged recently with his constituents on welfare cuts —”
“I think that the Minister of Finance and Personnel also mentioned that today in answer to a question from Roy Beggs. The evidence against the cuts is there, right across the board. <BR /> <BR />Not one of the contributors from the DUP mentioned the people they represent. Not one of you mentioned the people you have engaged with about these cuts. I have attended public meetings across the North, including in east Belfast with Paula Bradley, and the message we got, loud and clear, is that these cuts will be a disaster. They will impact working-class loyalist communities and working-class republican and nationalist communities equally badly. What are you doing about it? You are getting up and scaremongering and telling us what we should and should not be doing. What are you doing?”
“She also talked about scaremongering, and I think that the Minister is probably an expert on that. He seems to be playing Monopoly every night because he comes out with different figures every day, as does the Finance Minister, which is quite worrying. <BR /> <BR />I want to talk about the Bill. The Bill was passed in 2012 in Britain, so the debate is not academic. There is a plethora of hard evidence of the effects of the changes right across the British state. <BR /> <BR />It is interesting that Jeffrey Donaldson is the only DUP member who has publicly talked about the shortfall in the Budget before welfare cuts. He said that on television in the early hours of Friday morning when talking about the Scottish referendum and then went on to talk about welfare cuts.”
“I think that he was trying either to offend everybody or to please everybody, but then again, there is nothing new about that. <BR /> <BR />The Minister eulogised about what DSD has done for the poor population in the North. Not once did he mention the effect that these cuts will have on that poor population and how people will be affected. He referred to the NICVA report about the loss of £750 million and said that it was inaccurate. Maybe he is doing his figures on an abacus, because, as far as I am concerned, the report is fairly accurate. In fact, it is probably a conservative — if you will excuse the pun — estimate of what we might lose. <BR /> <BR />Paula, in her summing-up, spoke about the hint of hypocrisy. I think that I have dealt with that, because we are not being at all hypocritical.”
“No, the Member will not. <BR /> <BR />The reasons that are given by the Trussell Trust for the use of food banks in Coventry and places like that is that people's benefits are being sanctioned. <BR /> <BR />Alex Atwood talked about the Alliance Party's relationship with the Lib Dems and their reneging on the bedroom tax. He said that people here will lose £750 million a year and told us to stand up and fight. He also talked about £12 billion being taken out of our Budget by 2020. <BR /> <BR />Fearghal McKinney talked about the disastrous impact of welfare cuts, the £750 million loss and the fact that we make up 3% of the population. <BR /> <BR />I am not sure what Steven Agnew was talking about. I was trying to write it down, but I did not really understand it.”
“Just in case you are interested — I am sure that you are not really interested — there were 11 abstentions on that particular vote. <BR /> <BR />My colleague Michaela Boyle spoke about how the cuts are affecting people in Britain and the devastating consequences on the sick, the disabled and the vulnerable. She also spoke about the rise of food banks. That is not just happening in Britain but is happening here. The number of people in Britain being admitted to hospital with malnutrition has quadrupled since 2008, and the number in Britain who use food banks has gone up from 24,000 to 340,000 in a matter of a few years. Mostly —”
“That is interesting because Naomi Long signed a no-day-named motion in the British Parliament about the effects of transferring from DLA to PIP. That was also signed by Mr Wilson and Gregory Campbell, who is not here at the moment. Maybe that gives us some indication of what is involved. <BR /> <BR />Talking of Gregory, he spoke about a vote in Limavady Borough Council. A motion was passed by the council that called on the Executive to oppose the cuts. Apparently, an amendment was then tabled, which was passed on a technicality. Eleven people abstained, and it was retabled, not as an amendment but as a separate motion. I want to clarify that.”
“He tells us one day that he is totally opposed to the cuts; however, obviously the next day Mike talks to him and he is back on board with the party. So, he wants to make up his mind because the Ulster Unionists' lack of support for the people whom they represent is fairly clear and obvious. <BR /> <BR />Stewart Dickson really showed his true colours in his allegiance to the Tory Government and, indeed, his fellow travellers in the Liberal Democrats, who, as was pointed out, are now reneging on things like the bedroom tax.”
“I know that he likes alliteration, so maybe I could best describe his speech as rambling, repetitive rhetoric. Nothing new whatsoever. He talked about Sinn Féin's dictators in Dublin but did not mention the DUP's dictators in Downing Street and their cosy wee tea parties when making decisions about the people here and how we can best oppress them with welfare cuts. <BR /> <BR />Dolores Kelly supported the motion, but, interestingly enough, her first statement was attacking Sinn Féin for whatever reason. Then again, that is hardly surprising; she takes every opportunity she gets. She talked about cuts masquerading as reform, and, in fairness, she did talk about the demonisation of the disabled and unemployed in Britain. That has been a fact. <BR /> <BR />I do not think that Michael Copeland has made up his mind yet.”
“No, I will not give way. You did not give way this morning. <BR /> <BR />My colleague Alex Maskey opened the debate. He talked about noting with concern the disastrous impact on the most vulnerable and called on the Executive to oppose the cuts. He talked about a battle with the Tories and not with other parties and said that we should stand resolute. That is the call. Let us stand resolute. It is a battle with the Tories, not a battle with other parties. He talked about how the cuts have affected people in Britain. Paula may talk about our lack of concern for people in Britain. I can assure you that I do not have a lack of concern for anybody who is oppressed by these cuts. I want to make that clear. <BR /> <BR />I will go on to Sammy. Sammy came out with the usual tired arguments.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Paula Bradley mentioned being on the Social Development Committee since the inception of the Bill. My colleague Fra McCann and I have also been on that Committee since the inception of the Bill, and we, in Sinn Féin, have consistently opposed welfare cuts and will continue to do so. I do not think that anybody can question our record on that, whether it be from the initial stages of Margaret Ritchie trying to rush it through by accelerated passage, to Alex Attwood trying to introduce Atos and all the rest of it and through to our present Minister, who seems hell-bent on destruction as far as vulnerable people in the Six Counties are concerned.”
“In the coming term of the Assembly, we must collectively place the economic needs of the people front and centre. Let us demand the maximum powers to grow the economy that reflect the uniqueness of our economy. The economy is about choices, and we must be empowered to take them. Let us choose to protect the vulnerable, not exploit them.”
“The North is the only devolved region that has not had a comprehensive and independent review of fiscal policy. Why have successive DUP Finance Ministers not been pressing the case like their counterparts in Scotland and Wales? Without greater economic powers, we are incapable of developing an indigenous fiscal regime reflecting the uniqueness of the economy. <BR /> <BR />It is not an issue of the constitutional position of the North. The mechanism to resolve that is a border poll, as provided for in the Good Friday Agreement. As a republican, I believe in and will continue to pursue Irish unity. This is an issue of how we build economic growth and deliver jobs. If we are to realise economic potential, safeguard public services and create growth in jobs, we need the powers.”
“A consistent message has emerged from all those reviews and strategies, which is that we, the people of the North, should be empowered to make decisions about our own economic future, yet macroeconomic power continues to rest in London. British economic policy never has and never will build a strong economy in the North. Decisions affecting local trade, employment and investment in the North are made in Westminster for the benefit of the 97% that constitutes the British economy, not for the 3% here in the North. <BR /> <BR />The British economy is currently 2% lower than its pre-recession performance, whilst the Northern economy is 14% lower, yet we do not have access to the necessary tools to change that, but change is long overdue.”
“We know that this is an underestimate because it contains key gaps. The DFP fiscal balance report is not fit for purpose. In last year's report, the revenue estimate for 2010-11 was altered by £0·8 billion in comparison with the report produced the year before. This is laughable. How many more billions can DFP miraculously lose and find overnight? Yet, the other side of the House will continue to shout about how broke they believe us to be on the basis of a report that is not worth the paper that it is written on. It is time to move beyond shouting about the size of the fiscal deficit and focus on building economic growth. <BR /> <BR />At least 15 major reports on the state of the Northern economy since the 1957 Isles and Cuthbert report have reached broadly similar conclusions about the underperforming economy of the North.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I, too, rise to oppose the motion. The word "subvention" means gift. What gifts do our taxpayers and vulnerable people receive from the Tories? Are the people who rely on food banks to feed their children receiving gifts from the Tories? Are the people who are lying on hospital trolleys receiving gifts from the Tories? Are the 25,000 people who will emigrate this year receiving gifts from the Tories? Are the cancer patients whose sickness benefits will be reduced to just one year receiving gifts from the Tories? After having paid contributions for many, many years, they will be restricted to one year on their contributions. I think not. DFP poorly estimates that in 2011-12, we generated at least £14·1 billion in revenue locally.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Will the Minister outline any current plans that he has to bring forward special educational needs legislation?”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. How does the Minister propose to encourage retailers to begin to accept the new labels?”
“A majority decision was reached on very definite conclusions that were based on the evidence, not on what people made up, not on what Sinn Féin thought and not on what Mr Allister or anybody else thought: they were based exclusively on the evidence presented.”
“I said, "the majority of the Committee". I reiterate that it was the majority of the Committee. <BR /> <BR />Mr Wilson made much of there being a witch-hunt and used a number of Ps. However, it was a democratic decision. The DUP had the opportunity to vote, as it would have had even if it had not tabled a petition of concern. This was simply a motion to note the report; bringing in a petition of concern seems absolutely ludicrous.”
“No, I will not, because I want to finish up. <BR /> <BR />The Committee came to an unequivocal and democratic conclusion that the Minister deliberately misled the Committee.”
“There was no equivocation from any of the witnesses. <BR /> <BR />The representatives from Turkington's were unequivocal that they were there to represent themselves and not the Glass and Glazing Federation. The person from the Glass and Glazing Federation who attended the Committee stated very clearly that Turkington's did not represent them. Indeed, he stated that if someone wanted to represent the Glass and Glazing Federation, they would have to have an endorsement from the organisation. <BR /> <BR />The simple fact is that the Committee did a comprehensive report.”
“My colleague Fra McCann rightly stated that the only savings were in redecoration grants. The Minister is not great with figures because he has gone from talking about £18 million at one stage down to £670,000: maybe his maths is not that good. On this occasion, we do not know. The Committee was advised in May 2014 that the savings would not be known until the double-glazing schemes had been completed. The £15 million in savings that has been referred to is, therefore, speculation. I want to make that point. <BR /> <BR />The Committee came to a democratic decision. All the evidence was clear. Every person who gave evidence was asked very clearly by the Chair at the end of their evidence whether they were happy that they had been given the opportunity to state everything that they had wanted to state to the Committee.”
“If you look at it logically, you can see that Sinn Féin has the Chair and the vice-Chair, but we certainly cannot influence other party members. That is for sure, and I think that they would all agree with that. So, the Minister is being disingenuous when he goes off on a tangent and talks about all these contracts and the money that was saved, because the reality of the savings —”
“Could we influence Dolores Kelly, Michael Copeland or Stewart Dickson? I think not. I do not think that that is a serious suggestion from the DUP; it is made to deflect from the real nature and cause of the inquiry. <BR /> <BR />The Minister and some of his party colleagues went into great detail about the reason for the meeting, and they said that it was about contracts. The inquiry was not about that; it was simply to find out whether the Minister deliberately misled the Committee. The majority of the Committee, in a democratic fashion, came to the conclusion that the Minister deliberately misled the Committee. That is the stark fact. You can dress it up whatever way you want, but that is the stark reality. It is accepted by the majority of the Committee, including other parties, not just Sinn Féin.”
“When the playground antics have finished, let me say on that point that, having sat on Committee with Mr Allister, I very much doubt that I could influence him on anything.”
“Why, then, does his evidence conflict with that of every other person at the meeting? It conflicts with Housing Executive officials, Turkington's — everybody but him and his special adviser. I suppose that there are only so many ways to itemise how the Minister tried to cover up. <BR /> <BR />Some Committee members said that it is a Sinn Féin-led Committee, and they spoke about the make-up of this particular Committee. My understanding is that all Committees in the Assembly have a similar make-up. Sinn Féin has three Committee members; the DUP has four. Are they seriously suggesting that we Sinn Féin members are able to influence Mr Allister?”
“He accepted that he was wrong in his assumption that he had met the Glass and Glazing Federation, and he stated that he had already admitted that. He said that he did not see how the Committee could reach the conclusion it did. <BR /> <BR />He then went on to address comments that other members made, but I will not go into that. He also noted the BBC's refusal to attend to give evidence, and he said that the Committee's process was flawed and that it produced a flawed outcome. The Minister should note that the Committee considered the DSO letter at its first meeting but after the summer recess, and as I said, a response will be agreed this week. <BR /> <BR />I will now speak as a Sinn Féin member of the Committee. The Minister has consistently — or maybe inconsistently — stated that he wanted to put the record straight.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Minister referred to the savings of £15 million that arose as a result of the meeting, and he said that it was immaterial to him who he met. Obviously not, because, presumably, if it was immaterial, he would not have changed the record. He noted that the Committee's report did not refer to this. The Minister referred to Mr Turkington's letter as evidence that the special adviser was under the impression that a letter was coming from the Glass and Glazing Federation. He stated that he had nothing to hide about the 16 April meeting and that the tendering process for double glazing was handled by the Housing Executive. He also said that he had referred in a previous Assembly question to a meeting with Turkington Holdings.”
“He stated that the Minister was seeking to ensure that the public were getting a better and more cost-effective service. He also stated that the previous Minister should have resigned over his handling and mismanagement of contracts in the Housing Executive. He was happy to stand by the Minister and reject the report. <BR /> <BR />The Minister, in referring to the process, indicated that the inquiry does not adhere to the principles of the Inquiries Act. I will point out that it is not a public inquiry, so the Inquiries Act does not apply. Maybe the Minister could take note of that. However, the Committee is considering a response, and it aims to have that with the Department this week.”
“He expressed concern about the reputational damage caused to the company Turkington Holdings. He reiterated the £15 million cost savings that the alternative fitting method that Turkington's suggested at the meeting could realise. He recalled that Turkington's did not benefit financially in any way from its suggested cost savings. He expressed concern that some Committee members have already predetermined outcomes for phases 2 and 3. <BR /> <BR />Peter Weir agreed that the debate goes beyond the Minister and said that it is about the Assembly's credibility. He reiterated his colleagues' views that there was a predetermined outcome to the report before the inquiry had begun. He also reiterated that there was no financial gain to the Minister or to Turkington's, only to the public of the North.”
“He said that the petition of concern was tabled because this was not a public inquiry but a political witch-hunt, and no party would allow it to go ahead. <BR /> <BR />Paula Bradley expressed grave concerns about the findings. She stated that she was not convinced that the Minister deliberately misled the Committee. She said that the Minister told the facts as he understood them at the time, and, when he realised his mistakes, sought to rectify them. She highlighted the savings that would have been realised as a result of the meeting and stated that the only beneficiaries were Housing Executive tenants — not the Minister or the party. She stated that this was a cheap political move by other parties. <BR /> <BR />Trevor Clarke highlighted the cost and the time that the Committee wasted on the inquiry.”
“<BR /> <BR />Sammy Wilson, who was one of the Members who spoke in support of the Minister, said that there was a public witch-hunt, during which established political prejudices were aired. He said that people entered the inquiry with their mind made up, as was evidenced on 8 July in the House, and the inquiry was a means of sustaining that. He recalled that the Minister's meetings had resulted in savings of £15 million, but that was not recorded in the report as Committee members argued that these savings were not conclusive. He recalled that officials were clear that it would not have mattered whom their meetings were with, it would have gone ahead. He recalled that the minute of the meeting, a letter and an answer to a question in the Chamber show that it was with Turkington's.”
“He stated that changes were made to the Minister's diary and that the special adviser had instructed that changes be made to Assembly Questions and the letter to the Chair. Importantly, he noted the significant changes to the minutes of the meeting of 16 April 2012. He noted that the Minister had been challenged by the BBC, yet he maintained his pretence. He said that the Minister "ran out of road" and "calculatingly and deliberately" changed the record. He noted that the former private secretary stated that it was likely that either the Minister or the special adviser had instructed her to change the minutes of other records, and neither of them was man enough to admit who did that.”
“He noted the concern about the inability of the Minister's former private secretary to recall who gave her instructions. He suggested that the Minister should apologise, and he referred to the arrogance of the DUP. <BR /> <BR />In supporting the report's findings, John Dallat stated that the Assembly was on trial as public confidence is at an all-time low. He considered that the Minister asking us to believe that he was not aware whom the meeting was with was sad and undermined the Assembly. He called on the Minister to resign. <BR /> <BR />Jim Allister said that there was no disputing that the Minister misled the Committee, and he noted that significant and determined efforts were made to change the records to show that he had met the Glass and Glazing Federation rather than Turkington's.”
“He stated that Turkington's was brushed out of the record; however, Turkington's was clear that it had represented no one but itself. Indeed, that was borne out by the Glass and Glazing Federation, which also gave evidence. Mr McCann noted that requests from other double-glazing firms were rejected. He said that the evidence was clear that the meeting had been with Turkington's. The Committee's only interest was, he said, to get to the truth, and he criticised the behaviour of DUP members at some of the meetings. <BR /> <BR />Ross Hussey noted the serious allegations made by 'Spotlight'. He made some broad observations on the report. He questioned the Minister's claims that he did not realise that he had met Turkington's until after the first evidence session.”
“He noted that the issues raised and the ramifications of this affair will go far. <BR /> <BR />Stewart Dickson stated that the Minister was either guilty of incredible incompetence or had deliberately misled the Committee. He found it extremely alarming that officials allowed the Minister to sustain the belief that he had met the Glass and Glazing Federation, when they had evidence that made clear whom he met. Mr Dickson lambasted the DUP for its use of the petition of concern. He noted that the Committee found the Minister's evidence unbelievable. <BR /> <BR />Fra McCann spoke in support of the Committee motion. He noted that the Department held the Committee in disregard, given how it addressed its responsibility to provide information.”
“Dolores Kelly thanked the Committee team for their efforts and noted the Chair's adherence to procedural fairness. She noted that any objective reader of the report would agree with its conclusions. She referred to the defence raised by Mr Wilson as unprincipled. Mrs Kelly also noted that the Minister threatened legal action but did not follow it up. She emphasised that any Minister anywhere on these islands who was found to have misled a Statutory Committee would have already left his post. She went on to say that evidence heard by the Committee was a public indictment of the Minister. <BR /> <BR />Michael Copeland stated that he based his decision on the evidence presented before the Committee. He referred to the petition of concern and what its application was originally aimed at.”
“No; I do not have enough time. <BR /> <BR />The Chair also described the process of the guidelines on procedural fairness, the fact that the Department's and the Minister's replies were included in appendices to the report, and he also mentioned the minority report.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Chair of the Committee gave a comprehensive overview of phase 1 of the inquiry. He said that the evidence was based on the inquiry and talked about the difficulty in getting papers from the Department and the obstructive approach that it adopted, with papers being passed to the Minister first. He also commented, as did others, on the BBC choosing not to appear before the Committee. That was certainly a grave disappointment.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I add my voice to those of Members who have shared concerns about the use of a petition of concern today. <BR /> <BR />The Committee members who spoke today in support of the report referred to the evidence that was collated and reviewed. They were all clear that the weight of the evidence was such that it could not have possibly come to any conclusion other than the one that we reached: the Minister deliberately misled the Committee regarding the meeting of 16 April 2012. Contrary to this, those Committee members who supported the Minister's position made a number of points to underpin that support. Naturally, the Minister also made his opposition to the report clear. I will try to reflect all those positions over the next few minutes.”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. The question was about your possible input into that particular Magilligan to Greencastle ferry, but I will clarify that for the Minister in writing. This is the supplementary question: has the Minister had any input into the idea of an extension of the Wild Atlantic Way trail to the north coast and its tourism potential?”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement and pay tribute to the Cuan Mhuire centre in my constituency, which does so much to help people deal with alcohol and drug-related issues. <BR /> <BR />Minister, you mentioned prescription drugs, which have become an increasing problem. These prescription drugs are readily available online and, without proper medical supervision, can be extremely dangerous. We have already had fatalities in the North related to these prescription drugs. Minister, do you think that enough is being done to counteract that particular avenue of access to prescription drugs?”