Carál Ní Chuilín
North Belfast · Sinn Féin · Northern Ireland
“To continue the theme of undermining public confidence and public effectiveness, I ask you this, Minister: why do you and your DUP colleagues continue to block the 'good jobs' Bill, particularly the measures for parents whose babies require neonatal care and, indeed, other measures that will support workers who are struggling with the cos…”
“At the end of the day, guns were used to kill Catholics — Davy Payne; surface-to-air missiles in South Africa and Paris and then some. I will give the deputy First Minister another opportunity not to deflect but to condemn her party's involvement in Ulster Resistance and with the red berets that they wore.”
“I thank the Minister for that response. I have a close family relative who is in need of a SPiMS unit in an Irish-medium school but cannot access one in North Belfast at all. Apart from access in P4 and P5, they will have to go to an English-speaking school, even though Irish is their first language.”
“You mentioned some of the issues that are important: trade union representation, the banning of zero-hours contracts and employees being able to have their tips and service charges. Anyone who cannot get behind these proposals needs to be clear — concerns for some, and hiding behind the industry for others.”
“First Minister, I know that, recently, you were in Ardoyne for the sod cutting of the new £3·4 million purpose-built youth facility for Ardoyne Youth Enterprise. Further to your response to Brian Kingston, can you give us an update on that project and, indeed, any others?”
“I agree 100%, Linda. That is something that we all agree on. We met many people. The Bill was published and was based on the report of the truth recovery process.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,734 lines we hold for Carál Ní Chuilín, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 27 of 55.
“Máirtín was right: those things were brought in without regulations. The Minister — I will not go as far as saying the Attorney General also — is tripping himself up. Maybe he could find 50 grand down the back of his sofa for the advice services. Maybe if they were provided in Orange halls, they would have a better opportunity of getting supported. <BR /> <BR />I want a better and greater focus on entitlement for people who are entitled to benefits. I want to make sure that he and his Department — I have absolutely no difficulty in saying this — place a greater emphasis on error in the Department, particularly when new transitional arrangements are being made and that claimants living in poverty are not penalised for inefficiencies as the regulations roll out.”
“Yet, PIPs were introduced, as will other benefits, without regulations. It goes back to the comment that he made earlier about my party colleague, Máirtín Ó Muilleoir.”
“I, too, welcome the regulations. Like Nichola Mallon, particularly in relation to giving independent advice on benefits entitlement, I urge the Minister to follow Belfast City Council's example not just in respect of independent advice services for north Belfast but in respect of similar services across the North. When new regulations come in, it is incumbent on the Department to ensure that, where there are changes in circumstances, particularly to the way in which benefits are brought in, there is help and support. I also urge the Minister and his Department to make sure that there is a greater focus on error rather than just the primary focus on fraud. <BR /> <BR />I noted that the Minister said that this was in keeping with the regulations on personal independence payments.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I completely agree with everything that he is saying, particularly around protections and public procurement programmes. I wonder why his party colleague stood outside Casement Park when £80 million of investment was going into the most deprived area, with all those protections for local people. Is it OK for us to build social houses but not dreams for people in the GAA?”
“To distance ourselves from you, as far as possible.”
“To distance ourselves from arrogance, from alleged corruption, from disrespect.”
“No. He was not wrong, Naomi. The money is there at our insistence, with our due diligence in the Executive making sure it is there and with people at their desk doing their job. I am not getting into a whole back and forward, as much as we could do that all day. I am accepting that the Member is coming from a position where she wanted to ensure that the people who were listening to scaremongering on the radio were protected, and I believe they are today. I believe they are, with the insistence of our party and the support of other people who eventually came to our position, so on that basis, I am happy to support these regulations.”
“OK, it is a political Chamber, and you are a politician and so am I, but the regulations are here, and unless we insisted — we insisted — that due diligence and the exercising of responsibilities for ministerial duties happened, we would not even be sitting here and we would have found a way to ensure people are not penalised. It is really easy for everybody to get on and dance to someone else's tune. I think we are all genuine about making sure that people who are in difficult circumstances financially are not further disadvantaged. I think that is where the Member is coming from.”
“No. To be honest Naomi, you are making a political point.”
“For me, that says it all, and that is why we wanted to ensure that we stood firm to make sure that these mitigation packages happened. We will not be taking any lectures on that. We will not be treating people with disrespect. We will not be treating them with arrogance either, and we want to make sure that all these regulations and any that come after, and particularly their implementation, are open and transparent. The thing is that people all have fears, and some of the straplines out there are saying that people who were on benefits are going to be impacted, but these regulations will now ensure that all the scaremongering out there will cease.”
“Without a review, it would have been perhaps ridiculous, because you would see the potential for people who were downsizing property and actually saving the public purse money to be penalised down the road. So that makes a lot of sense. <BR /> <BR />I am also happy that there will be processes, perhaps through social landlords, to ensure issues for other circumstances. The Minister outlined management transfers and all the issues relating to that. There are also people who fall between some of those categories through no fault of their own, and that needs to be taken into consideration. <BR /> <BR />I am quite proud — I will take no lectures from Paul Givan or any member of his party — of our stance on our protections for welfare reform.”
“Our position on abstentionism from Westminster has always been out. When the elections are on, we have always put our case to the public, and on the basis of an abstentionist approach, the public have returned us. If you are questioning the public's ability to make a rational decision on a vote, you do that. At a time when you were making silly points, with respect, your party was hitching itself to the Tories to implement cuts here and right across, irrespective, with no mitigation packages and no protections — absolutely nothing. I am accepting what the Member is saying with a very, very small pinch of salt. <BR /> <BR />On protecting people, I am glad to see a review built into this legislation — these regulations that are coming forward — particularly on the change of circumstances.”
“It is quite obvious that a lot of defence tactics are going on, particularly from the Minister and his party. He is right — I will agree with him on this — that had Sinn Féin not stood firm to ensure that the most vulnerable were protected and protected properly, irrespective of legislation coming from Westminster, we would all, collectively, have been in a much different position. We stood by our convictions and, to the best of our ability, got a deal to protect the most vulnerable. In relation to fines, not one penny came out of the pockets of the claimants whom we all talk about. Yes, money came out of the block grant, but let us be clear about why: while people, when looking over one shoulder, were waxing lyrical about the need to ensure that the block grant was protected, they failed to look over their other shoulder. Then —”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I repeat this again. Given the remarks from the DUP Whip, who is indicating that the First Minister is making this statement to give an account of the RHI scheme without the consent of the deputy First Minister, I appeal again to the advice given to the Speaker that this is actually challenging the integrity of the Executive Office. I ask for that advice to be considered.”
“Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, I still persist that, if the statement from the First Minister is allowed to go ahead, it is undermining the joined-up approach of the Executive Office, and I believe that you are setting a precedent.”
“Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker —”
“Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, there is an acceptance in what you have just said that allowing this statement to continue is undermining the jointery of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister and the Executive Office.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much for that advice, but it is still clear — it is at the top of the written statement that Mrs Foster is going to deliver to the House — that she is making the statement on behalf of herself. You have received correspondence from the deputy First Minister to indicate that. Is it the convention that, on behalf of the Executive, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister are then advised by your office to make two separate statements in order to satisfy the recall of the Assembly? I ask for advice on that.”
“Most of the debates we have had, particularly on housing, have been good. A lot of people watch the debates and read them afterwards. It is helpful that they are not as pointed or, at times, as offensive as they have been. At times — it is no surprise — we come to this and future debates from different ideological positions. That is OK — that is what politics is about — but I am particularly pleased to see that there is overwhelming support for additional social housing provision. That is a good thing. I am disappointed that we will not get support for our motion, but that is politics.”
“Once that review is concluded and goes in front of the Committee, I would like to come back to this discussion. There are examples of what happened in Scotland, as Fra outlined. Indeed, I acknowledge the work of the research service for the debate; it has been very good. We will use the research on the outcome of the review that is under way and that the Minister is analysing to see what we do next. If there are not, as the Member and other Members said, the sales that there were in 2003, all the predictions are that that is likely to increase. If that is going to increase and we do not have a like-for-like project running in parallel, what are the alternatives? They are not great for the social housing stock unless we build at the rate at which we sell, and I am not arguing for even that. <BR /> <BR />It has been a good debate.”
“I know, but — do you know what? — I am on my feet, so I will talk about my own, and you can talk about yours. <BR /> <BR />We need to have a proper, mature discussion about the provision of social housing. Greater investment is needed. <BR /> <BR />I am delighted but not really surprised that the SDLP is supporting the motion and not the amendment. They too, in their constituencies, see the difficulties that their constituents face with homelessness, but they have also probably seen examples of social housing that was bought by tenants now getting sublet by private landlords, who are using public money. I do not think that anybody, including the Minister and his officials, could stand over that and are not going to. <BR /> <BR />I would like to see, as Fra said, a serious discussion after the review.”
“Unfortunately, the people of Sandy Row and Donegall Road are subsidising the people who live in BT9, and the Member knows that. I am glad he welcomes the Finance Minister's move on rates, even —”
“No disrespect to anybody in east Belfast, but there was never an issue when it came to regeneration, when land was made available there, but when it comes to regeneration in some parts of your constituency — I am talking about regeneration generally — it did not happen, and it did not happen at a pace. Christopher is coyly acknowledging what I say, even though he probably does not agree.”
“I do, and you just interrupted me at a good moment, because I think a few Members mentioned empty homes. If the empty homes strategy was robust enough and there was investment in it, you would have the availability for more people to have a home. <BR /> <BR />The Minister and others mentioned that we need to have suitable land for the development of social housing. I have asked many Departments, including some of my colleagues' Departments, about the availability of land for regeneration, including social housing. I have to say that some of the answers I got back were complete waffle. What I see is that, when it comes to regeneration, if it was to build a 40-foot all-shiny, glassy thing in east Belfast, it would happen, but, if it is 40 houses in north Belfast, it might not. I have a problem with that. I have a big problem with that.”
“<BR /> <BR />This has been a good debate, despite the fact that there is going to be a Division. People welcome the fact that almost 10,000 social homes will be built in this mandate. We need to look at that to try to bring more back in.”
“I was not aware of the review, and I do not think that you were either. I sense that others were also not aware of it. From being in a Department, I know that reviews happen all the time. It is good to come into a Department and look back at what had happened in order to go forward. I do not have an issue with that, but I will have an issue if we do not find out the outcome of the review because we sit on the Committee. We will all find out the outcome, and that is accepted. That is scrutiny. I was not aware that a review is ongoing, and I certainly did not know the terms of reference until the Minister mentioned them. Jonathan knew about them, but that is OK because he and the Minister are in the same party. I would expect that, and none of us can carp about it.”
“I sit in a very densely populated constituency, but you can go to a house in a rural area, particularly an older couple's house, and find that they are paying an absolute fortune to heat the place because it does not have great insulation. None of us wants that. <BR /> <BR />If there are all these white vans, send them into the country areas to get some of those houses fixed.”
“That is not saving the public purse any money. <BR /> <BR />Equally, I heard the Minister and Jonathan Bell talk about saving on maintenance costs as if there is a massive maintenance budget and a huge maintenance programme. There is maintenance, some of which I can see in my constituency, and my constituents really appreciate it, but let us not kid ourselves that there are all these diggers and tradespeople out with hard hats and belts doing all this maintenance, because they are not. We are not doing enough of that work. <BR /> <BR />Michelle Gildernew made the point about rural communities. I have seen some of the houses in rural areas, and they are disgraceful. That is not something that any of us can be proud of. I am not saying that it is the Minister's fault — it is not — but it is not good.”
“If people are being genuine — I believe that they are — when they say that the right to a social home is fundamental to people's sense of who they are, how they look after themselves and their family and their sense of well-being and security, we need to take that into consideration when we look at aspects of debates in this place. <BR /> <BR />The house sales scheme is OK in and of itself. If you are doing everything else, it is grand, but the difficulty is that we have not been doing enough of everything else. Eamonn McCann raised the point that I was going to make, but I know that people who bought their houses in north Belfast went on to sell them to landlords who put tenants in. The new tenants are often the same people who sold the house; they are getting housing benefit to pay rent for the house that they bought.”
“I thank Fra McCann for proposing the motion. This is not the first housing motion that we have debated in the Chamber, and, hopefully, it will not be the last. Our position has been very clear: we cannot support the Alliance Party amendment. The Alliance Party is either not listening or does not understand. Fra McCann explained that the suspension would not be immediate and used examples from Wales and Scotland to try to give some succour and assurance. It is your right to table an amendment, but we will not support it. <BR /> <BR />People come at this issue differently, but there is agreement across the board that we need to look at the whole area of housing. I would use that support during other debates.”
“As some will, no doubt, be disappointed that functions will not be transferred to local government, will the Minister confirm something that he said in his statement? I welcome his commitment to neighbourhood renewal and that there will be a continuation for 18 months to two years while the review is going on. However, can he confirm that any review will be done on the basis of tackling poverty and deprivation, that it will look at the role of other bodies and agencies to ensure that they, too, have a part in the delivery of any new neighbourhood renewal programme, and that it will be built on objective need? In my opinion, in the past — not under your watch — reviews were a result of political vetting.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. In the context of his comments, it is also looking at the patterns of deprivation outlined in the judicial review of last year. As the Minister said, as part of the consultation on the Programme for Government we will use debates like these and other opportunities for Members to come forward with alternatives that have not been expressed thus far.”
“I want to talk about ensuring that the legal responsibilities are brought forward as part of the Programme for Government. On that basis, we will support the amendment from the DUP; we will not be supporting the original motion.”
“I really do not. <BR /> <BR />I want to talk particularly around —”
“No, it is OK; I do not need it. Thanks anyway.”
“I am sorry, I will not, because I am coming to the end.”
“That is directly correlated to the British Government's approach to tax and benefits policies. <BR /> <BR />The Executive have already stated that they will bring forward a social strategy. That will be in line with their legal responsibilities as a result of the outcome of the judicial review. Like many others, I will look forward to not just the Department for Communities but all Departments ensuring that their resources are targeted on objective need.”
“It is very clear that, as part of the consultation we are in now, particularly on the Programme for Government, a social strategy and what an anti-poverty strategy looks like need to be addressed. We also have to recognise there are some levers that impact on poverty and deprivation that are not within the remit of the Executive. For example, it is shown that one of the greatest impacts on poverty in particular — I am sure many of us have spoken on this previously and will today and for ever more — especially on the working poor, is tax and how benefit policies impact here. You have only to look at the report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies entitled 'Child and Working-Age Poverty in Northern Ireland from 2010 to 2020', which sets out the rising levels of poverty here.”
“We will also not talk about the impact of partition; we will not talk about that either. <BR /> <BR />One thing I think we can all agree on is that the notion of people's experience of poverty is particularly acute when you look at access to employment, childcare, benefits and facilities. The premise on which the motion was moved was the Executive fulfilling their duty — section 28E, I think it is referred to — to bring forward an anti-poverty strategy. Everyone knows our position on this; it has been very clear. We support the fact that there should be and will be an anti-poverty strategy in the social strategy. <BR /> <BR />Christopher moved the DUP amendment. I would like to see it talk about patterns of deprivation as well. Perhaps the Minister in his summing up could refer to that.”
“It effectively misses out on some 9,000 people who live in poverty and income poverty. That is worthy of consideration. If we are really about tackling poverty and deprivation, you can find those 9,000 among the people who are behind the statistics; they are the people I and others have referred to as the top 10% of the most deprived. <BR /> <BR />I found one thing regrettable about the opening of the debate. Sinn Féin did not hitch its wagon to any Tories; it never has and never will. I want to make that completely clear. Christopher did that for his party, as is his prerogative, and I will do it for ours. We were collectively adamant about ensuring that the mitigation packages that were brought in as part of Tory welfare reform were about trying to offset the worst impacts of poverty on people, but we will not talk about that, sure.”
“I suppose I am not really surprised at the tone in which the debate was opened. I do not think there is anybody in the Assembly who does not have concerns about poverty and deprivation. I want to say that, but, while we are involved in politics in this institution all day long, I think there is an element of playing politics with this issue. I also think the motion falls short, to be quite frank. It falls short on the figures, because it is all done on the measurement before housing costs. I listened to Nichola Mallon, and I am sure other speakers from the SDLP will say the same; I do not know what the Ulster Unionists will say. It is as though those parties were never in the Executive and poverty has just been occurring since May 2016. I do not believe in taking the approach of looking at before housing costs.”
“We need to make sure that the infrastructure is invested in and maintained and that we create the opportunities not only for people to come to our shores but for our residents and citizens to make sure they, too, participate in some of these events. I, too, support the motion.”
“I also welcome the fact that, across the island, both institutions are working to look at events we can host in both parts of the island. That has continued and is a good thing. I believe that Tourism NI, Sport NI, the Executive and councils have a massive role to play. Local government has a massive role to play. I think that when we have joined-up approaches — I am seeing more of that — you will get more world-class events. <BR /> <BR />I will go back to a point that Conor Murphy raised. Do not lose sight of the small events. World-class events like the Olympic and Paralympic Games have inspired children and young people to get involved in sport. Some of the smaller events will do the same.”
“It was a cross-community event. People from right across the island and from Wales and everywhere travelled for these events. Things like the Transplant Games and the recent world-class Irish dancing competitions in the Waterfront Hall are examples. There are many other things, even in rural communities, such as bike trails that have had investment from DARD and others, and there are water and marine activities. I think we have a lot here to enhance our tourist product. Can we all do more? Certainly. That is a given. <BR /> <BR />When I spoke to other Ministers, some of them would have given their eye teeth for the infrastructure and investment we have put into some of our areas to enhance tourist product.”
“I do not do it because I was a Minister; I do it now even though I am not. I do not go to soccer matches but to other events. When I was growing up, there were areas you just did not go to. I think that, if we are all honest, that was the case for many of us. Investment from our Executive in big infrastructure projects will help by not only creating awareness but attracting people to places and events that, in the past, they may not have considered. <BR /> <BR />The investment in the ladies' rugby has been mentioned. Next year, we will see the UEFA Women's Under-19 Championship, and, hopefully, the Assembly will give those women our support. They need it. I have witnessed world-class fishing competitions come to these shores, even to the waterworks in my constituency, which is a small lake. It was brilliant.”
“Absolutely. To be fair, any of us could be in that situation. My difficulty was when the line was crossed in making representations, as he or anybody else is entitled to do. I found it disturbing that some were proactively arguing against such an investment. I welcomed the Member's intervention and his leadership on the issue, and I also now welcome his party's position. <BR /> <BR />I think the role of Casement Park in the Rugby World Cup for 2023 is absolutely critical. I look forward to the whole Assembly giving support to its redevelopment. Will it enhance tourism? It absolutely will. Will it add to the sports activity and potential events not just in west Belfast but in Belfast? Yes, it will. Will that improve good relations? In my opinion, it will. I grew up never putting a foot in Windsor Park, but now I do.”
“I found it completely ironic that some Members were complaining about a lack of investment in west Belfast — rightly so — yet one of the Members representing the SDLP — Mr Attwood — was one of the two Attwoods who stood outside Casement Park against the redevelopment. For me, that was a complete —”
“That was a marathon speech, Tom. Fair play to you. I also support the motion, and, just for clarification, when my colleague Conor Murphy was talking about his colleague in front of him being an avid racer, it was not me; it was Philip McGuigan. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the motion. It is a good debate that is looking at all the aspects that enhance our tourism product. Someone said that, at times, we are tabling motions that have no point. Lots of people could take that view about lots of things. People take the time to table a motion and there is then a debate, and it is always worthwhile. Even if we do not agree with it, it is still a worthwhile process. <BR /> <BR />I am heartened to hear, certainly with Justin McNulty's contribution, that the SDLP is now supporting the redevelopment of Casement Park, which I welcome.”
“On a similar theme, a Aire, can you give us a brief outline of some of the initiatives on road safety that are under way in schools?”
“I thank the Minister for her statement and wish her well. My question is in relation to — you will not be surprised as you have given me a namecheck — mental health. It is really in relation to dual diagnosis and the partnership with our health and social care staff as well as our partners and stakeholders in the community sector. I am aware that the Protect Life 2 strategy is out for consultation, and perhaps the Minister would like to wait until then, and Bamford, but can she give us some assurance that our partners in the community and voluntary sector will not become invisible when reforming our health and social care practices?”