Alex Maskey
West Belfast · Sinn Féin · Northern Ireland
“First, I thank the Minister for making an absolute pledge of non-interference by him as the Minister of Finance. I note that he has asked others to do likewise.”
“I think that it has been made very clear that you can legislate, set up institutions and all the rest of it within a particular framework, but, if people chose and choose not to embrace the principles and concepts, it will not work.”
“I appreciate that the Member was not here last February, so she had no role in the last discussions, but she needs to be aware that her party voted against the proposal to close the scheme in February 2016. That is the reality; that is a fact.”
“Over the last number of years, we have all been challenged in the things that we had to do and in the agreements that we had to reach and were challenged to adhere to. Nevertheless, when people have worked in the spirit of partnership and sharing power, this place and this and previous Executives have produced much better work.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I really did not want to interrupt, because I know that he is passionate about the points that he is making. If I remember correctly, the Ulster Unionist Party leader said a couple of months ago that, if the Good Friday Agreement was up for debate now, the party would not support it.”
“A Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle, I also wish you well in the time ahead as a republican activist. <BR /> <BR />It is fairly ironic in its own way that, in the last hours of this Assembly, we are debating the principles and values of the Good Friday Agreement.”
The complete record
Every one of 704 lines we hold for Alex Maskey, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 15.
“<BR /> <BR />Similarly, the Committee is interested in exploring the opportunities provided by the European social fund (ESF) that will enable social enterprises, and the third sector in particular, to develop new services and markets for communities. In doing so, in terms of policy, we will look at the best practices at home and abroad to underpin the development of that sector which is very, very important for all of us, given the links that it has with the grass roots of hard-pressed communities in particular. So, clearly, the ESF has an important role. <BR /> <BR />We note, and place on record our disappointment at, the number of organisations that have lost very important amounts of money very recently. In some cases, those losses have led to the closure of key projects.”
“As a matter of fact, the Committee notes that the European Investment Bank (EIB) aims to invest £1 billion to tackle the lack of affordable housing in the UK. Indeed, in February, the EIB gave, I think, £350 million — essentially a 30-year loan — to one of Britain's biggest social housing landlords, the Sanctuary Group. Interestingly, in terms of scale, that group has around 96,000 properties. It will use the money and the 30-year loan to build new homes, refurbish existing homes and regenerate run-down areas — something that we are all very keen to see happening here in respect of the future for social housing provision in the North. The Committee will investigate with the Department and other stakeholders whether the EIB can play a role in assisting with our investment need to address social housing demands.”
“So, the Committee has already agreed to take a briefing from the Department for Social Development before the summer recess so that we can recalibrate our priority programme for work in the time ahead. <BR /> <BR />Many people tend to think merely of how much money we can draw down from Europe for particular projects. That is very important in its own right, but I think more of us have to think more strategically. I will give a couple of examples. We have often talked about social housing, for example, as a current priority for all of us. The provision of social housing is a major issue for us all, and demand continues to considerably outstrip supply. Meeting that demand requires major investment.”
“The Member who has just spoken indicated his views, but no matter what our views are, we understand that we have very, very clear and important links. <BR /> <BR />It is fair to say, on behalf of the Social Development Committee, that we have not focused entirely on the European issues that relate to our remit. That is primarily because our priorities have been lying elsewhere in recent times. However, the Committee is very aware that we have important work to do in terms of the broader community and voluntary sector, which the Committee has a very important relationship with and on which these European matters very much impinge, particularly where you have a reduction in the budget.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. First, I apologise to the Chairperson of the Committee for not being able to be in the Chamber when he made his opening remarks on the report. I thank him for having the report tabled this morning. I speak as a member of the Committee and as Chairperson of the Social Development Committee. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the work that the Committee, under the chairmanship of Mr Nesbitt, has undertaken with regard to the scrutiny of the European Union policies, priorities and so on. As I said, I thank the Chairperson for his management of the process. <BR /> <BR />Obviously, a lot of people, regardless of their views on Europe, fully understand that we are very much linked, not least economically, but in political ways.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. What efforts is the Minister's Department making to protect front-line services?”
“<BR /> <BR />I hope that I have given a fair reflection, a Cheann Comhairle, of the Committee's concerns on the broader issues, and I thank you for the latitude you gave me to do so. On behalf of the Committee for Social Development, I support the amendments and passage of the Bill.”
“The Committee noted that an officially recognised carer could potentially obtain a full state pension depending on the duration of their caring responsibilities. It therefore calls on the Department for Social Development to work with stakeholders and other Departments, particularly DHSSPS, to maximise the number of informal carers officially recognised as carers to ensure that they receive an appropriate level of state pension. <BR /> <BR />On behalf of the Committee, I welcome the introduction of a single-tier pension. It provides simplicity in an otherwise complex area. It also provides greater certainty in respect of what an individual can expect to receive on retirement. It is, and has been, described as a mixed bag and is, of course, part of ongoing wider changes and reform of pension provision.”
“According to the most recent figures, for 2012-13, only 110 people who put in a claim were getting a pension of less than the 10-year amount. <BR /> <BR />The Committee recommends that the Department provides an update when HMRC and DWP make progress towards effectively capturing information on those with multiple jobs and struggling to reach the lower earnings limit to ensure, in the context of this Bill, recognition of their service to society and that qualifying years can be accumulated accordingly. <BR /> <BR />The Committee highlighted the importance of making sure that informal carers received formal credit for their work that might otherwise go unrecognised, for example the carers' allowance, to ensure that that contributes to the number of qualifying years.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee was concerned that those with multiple part-time jobs or in zero-hours contracts might struggle to make the lower earnings limit required to trigger National Insurance contributions and, therefore, not reach the minimum qualifying period of 10 years' contributions to ensure a state pension. That issue was also raised by the Commissioner for Older People when giving evidence to the Committee. <BR /> <BR />The Department noted that National Insurance was an excepted matter and, therefore, fell outside the remit of the Assembly. However, the Committee was informed that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and HMRC were looking at this matter for the longer term. The Committee noted that the number of people who fell into this category was likely to be very low.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee noted that the bereavement support payment will not extend to surviving unmarried cohabiting partners, which is also the case with the payment of widowed parent's allowance. It noted that the main stated reason for that is the difficulty in officially verifying such relationships. However, the Committee shares the concerns of Cruse and the Childhood Bereavement Network that that might impact negatively on the children of such a relationship. It therefore recommends that the Department investigates how verification of such relationships can be established with a view to providing access for the surviving partner of such a relationship to the bereavement support payment.”
“Therefore, I intend to confine my remarks to the key issues raised by stakeholders and the related recommendations made by the Committee. <BR /> <BR />Members will note the inclusion in the Bill of changes to bereavement benefits. I thank Cruse Bereavement Care and the Childhood Bereavement Network for providing evidence to the Committee about the introduction of the bereavement support payment. Cruse expressed concern at the replacement of a number of benefits, including widowed parent's allowance, with a single bereavement payment and the likely impact of that on widowed parents with dependent children. The Committee recommends that the Department monitors the impact on widowed parents with dependent children as a result of replacing widowed parent's allowance and other bereavement benefits with a single bereavement support payment.”
“Throughout its consideration, the Committee took oral evidence from the three stakeholders that provided substantive written submissions, and regular written and oral briefings from the Department. The Committee welcomed the Department's proactive approach in addressing in a timely and comprehensive fashion the issues raised by stakeholders and for providing detailed briefings on these matters. I place on record the Committee's thanks to departmental officials who attended each evidence session and were, therefore, able to give almost simultaneous responses to questions and concerns raised by stakeholders. <BR /> <BR />The Committee's report outlines a range of issues raised by the Committee and addressed by the Department.”
“As part of the Committee's consideration of the Bill, a public call for evidence was issued in November 2014. The Committee sought submissions from stakeholders through advertisements placed in the local press. The Committee also proactively contacted the stakeholders who had contributed to the Department's consultation on the Bill to determine whether they also wished to make a submission to the Committee. Notwithstanding that effort, the Committee received only three substantive written submissions to the call for evidence, as well as three email responses.”
“Sorry. Gabh mo leithscéal. <BR /> <BR />The Committee considered the Department’s notification of the amendments at its meeting of 12 March and noted that they were of a consequential and technical nature. At that time, no members of the Committee raised any concerns with the proposed amendments, and, therefore, there was no further consideration in detail of the amendments. As I said, the Committee accepted that they were mainly consequential and technical, and they have already been outlined by the Minister to the House this morning. <BR /> <BR />I appreciate that this stage of the Bill is mainly to consider the amendments, but, with your indulgence, I would also like to refer briefly to some of the key issues considered by the Committee and the related recommendations proposed by the Committee in our report.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for bringing forward the Consideration Stage of the Bill. Notification of the amendments was provided to the Committee by the Department on 5 March, which was after the Committee had completed its scrutiny of the Bill and had reported on it.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Does the First Minister agree that it is more important to get welfare reform right and, in so doing, to ensure the full implementation of the Stormont House Agreement?”
“The statutory rule provides a little more money for sufferers of mesothelioma and their dependants, so the Committee for Social Development is happy and content to recommend that it be confirmed by the Assembly.”
“The Committee for Social Development considered the regulations at its meetings on 5 February and 26 February, at which time the Committee was content that the rule be made. As the House has just heard, the rule increases the payments to sufferers of diffuse mesothelioma and their dependants by 1·2%, in line with the uprating of industrial injuries benefits. <BR /> <BR />Mesothelioma is a cancer of the thin membrane that lines the chest and abdomen. The most common cause of the disease is exposure to asbestos, and the disease may not appear until 30 years or more after exposure. In that time, of course, companies responsible for failing to provide a safe working environment, which ultimately results in people developing the disease, may have gone out of business.”
“Therefore, the scenario in which the employer who is responsible for the dust exposure has wound up by the time that claims arise can be quite common. However, the regulations will at least ensure that the amounts payable offer some assistance to sufferers and their dependants, so it is important that the increases be provided for. <BR /> <BR />The regulations will increase the amounts payable to sufferers of certain dust-related diseases that are noted in the regulations or to the dependants of such persons who were disabled by such a disease before they died. The increase in each case is 1·2%. <BR /> <BR />The Committee for Social Development recommends that the statutory rule be affirmed by the Assembly.”
“Pneumoconiosis can be brought about simply by doing one’s work over many years in conditions that a person believes are safe.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. On behalf of the Committee for Social Development, I thank the Minister for bringing forward this statutory rule. The Committee considered the Department’s proposal to make the Pneumoconiosis, etc., (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations at its meeting on 5 February 2015 and considered the statutory rule at its meeting on 26 February 2015. <BR /> <BR />Members will know that the effects of dust-related lung diseases, as the Minister outlined, can be chronic and long term and can seriously impact on one’s quality of life as well as impacting on families. The effects can take a long time to develop and may not be diagnosed for a considerable number of years after exposure.”
“We want to make sure that we work with people in all sectors out there to end discrimination in our society. The Assembly needs to be more progressive than the public.”
“— wants to see a single equality Bill. We want to see a bill of rights. We will oppose the freedom of conscience Bill, and others in the House have already stated that they will too.”
“It is not our preferred option, and I again make this pledge in case anyone has missed the point: we as a party will continue to work with all other Members of the House who want to include — a lot of Members do — people below the age of 16 right through to birth. I invite all of the other parties to state who will in the future support the introduction of legislation on GFS that will include all ages. Sinn Féin certainly stands ready to deliver on that legislation if we get agreement from the First Minister. As I said, our party —”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. As I said, my party has a clear view: we want to see a single equality Bill; we want to see an end to all forms of discrimination; and, in respect of the proposed GFS legislation, we support proposed legislation from the age of 16 upwards. We argued for some time that that should include all ages, but that was not possible because the First Minister was not prepared to include everyone under the age of 16. That is quite simple, and that is the basic bottom line on the matter. It is not a choice of Sinn Féin. We were happy or at least a little more content with the fact that it was bringing in people under the age of 18 to at least include people of 16 years of age.”
“<BR /> <BR />As I said, my main point is that we need to go much further, and my party will certainly look forward to working with others in the House and with people in the sector to ensure that we do as much as we can in the remainder of this Assembly mandate and going forward into the next to end any form of discrimination against all of our citizens from when they are born.”
“We are disappointed that that is the way that the DUP is prepared to go in terms of OFMDFM. Nevertheless, as I said, I think that it is worthwhile, at least insofar as it includes people aged 16 and above. It is important to stress the importance not only for older citizens, who have been a very highly effective lobby — fair play to that sector of people out there; they are clearly in need of legislative protection — but it is important to say that there are a lot of very challenging issues for people from the age of 16 even to age 18. I think that the legislation will go some way to addressing some of their concern.”
“I look forward to being engaged in that work to make sure that we examine every opportunity we can, by way of various Department and agency strategies and policies, to seek to redress any aspects of discrimination that people under the age of 16 will have to suffer as a result of not being included in that particular piece of proposed legislation.”
“<BR /> <BR />We had lengthy and very significant discussions with the DUP at OFMDFM level, but there was only agreement to include people aged between 16 and 18 in the proposed GFS legislation, which is useful and beneficial. That is a step forward, but it does not go anywhere near far enough for Sinn Féin, and we see the introduction of that legislation as being one step towards ending discrimination in terms of citizens' rights and their ability to avail themselves of all the necessary and appropriate goods, facilities and services. <BR /> <BR />I make a pledge from the House this afternoon that we will endeavour to work with a wide range of people within the children and young persons' sector, as we have done this last while.”
“Like the previous Member to speak, Colum Eastwood, my party is very keen to have such a discussion, but we do not believe that that will be facilitated by the amendment. <BR /> <BR />We support the motion. I want to make it very clear on behalf of Sinn Féin that, whilst OFMDFM recently agreed legislation on goods, facilities and services (GFS), our party's absolute preference has always been to include all ages in that legislation. We worked for considerable time to try to ensure that that was the case. The best way to tackle and end discrimination is not to not go the whole way with the GFS Bill and omit people under the age of 16. I want to make it clear on behalf of Sinn Féin that that was not our preferred option, and we did not endorse it.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I will speak briefly on this matter. Like my party colleagues, I support the motion and reject the amendment. <BR /> <BR />In rejecting the amendment, it would prudent and wise for people to enter into dialogue. To that extent, the spirit of the amendment is supportable, but the proof of the pudding has to be in the eating. Therefore, in our party's view, if you create the conditions whereby it is quite obvious that there is an intention, at least on behalf of some by their actions, to discriminate against certain sections of our community, that is not the way to lead to a positive environment within which you might have a constructive discussion and debate.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. What plans does the Commission have to increase visits from women's groups, ethnic minorities and the LGBT community?”
“I thank the Member, because I know that he has very important points to make. Does the Member agree that it is probably very difficult for the SDLP, not that I have any great sympathy, given that its membership is clearly divided on the issue? Not that long ago, when Patsy McCreesh, Raymond's brother, tragically died, I understand that Mr Bradley, when giving his condolences, referred to the McCreesh family as a highly respected family. It is difficult for the SDLP to square the circle, particularly when those who aspire to be leaders — it does not actually have a leadership — are obviously politically spineless.”
“I thank the Minister for that response. Will he advise the House of when the new appointees to the board will be publicly announced?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Let me make this point very clearly: I did not, in any way, suggest anything about the advice sector. There are people there whom I have worked with for many years and people whom I value. I was referring to the SDLP having its cake and eating it.”
“I made this point earlier, but this is simply a case of having your cake and eating it.”
“— so he will not be eating into my time. <BR /> <BR />We support the Minister's amendments, because we think that they add the requirement for important reports to be introduced and for other important measures as part of an overall programme to protect the most vulnerable. We oppose amendment Nos 5, 6, 7, 19 and 25.”
“The Member is obviously not concerned enough to come into the Chamber to debate the issue —”
“No, I would not, because you could not take the time or interest to come to the Chamber to discuss this issue for months, never mind over the past couple of weeks.”
“It is allowing money to be kept in the pockets of the people who are most vulnerable — the people you all talk about, but then you want to make a joke about. Mr McNarry wants to make a joke from a sedentary position. You have not been in the debate.”
“I will repeat this ad nauseam if I need to: I am very pleased that we got a five-party agreement that goes a long way to protect the most vulnerable. If that is rolling over, I am happy to be a roll-over”
“I am pleased with that, because it allows us some other means of protection for the people we represent. <BR /> <BR />Sinn Féin has been trying to get legislation in place, with appropriate amendments, to make sure that the regulations will be subject to greater scrutiny, accountability and authority from the Executive. We have also been trying to make sure that the various guidelines are put in place to operate all the statutory regulations as they go forward and to ensure a significant package of mitigation measures. That is how we are trying, in the round, to tackle the welfare cuts agenda that is coming from London. <BR /> <BR />People who want to attack Sinn Féin or somebody else forget the little thing that this is a Bill coming from London; it is being imposed on us by London.”
“It lacks integrity, but that is the reality that we are in. Therefore we have these sham debates and sham arguments with people trying to score political points off others and scaring the life out of people in our community. Those people should not be frightened; they should not be worried; they should feel that the parties are prepared to work for them and to support them to the best of our ability. <BR /> <BR />The Minister has outlined the various schemes, and he has made it clear that the detail of the schemes has yet to be worked out. They will go to public consultation; they will come back to the Assembly; and they will go through the Executive. Where there are major concerns, people will have the right to bring them to the Executive.”
“No, thank you. It is getting late, and I am doing what the Ceann Comhairle has asked me to do. <BR /> <BR />I move now to control. I have made it clear that the Assembly will have greater authority over the regulations coming forward in the future. It is enabling, and we have a lot of work to do yet. The Minister will acknowledge and confirm that his party and the other parties should be operating through the party leaders' group, because that is the implementation of the Stormont House Agreement. Some people signed on to an agreement; then they signed on to the fact that their party leaders would act with the other party leaders and become the implementation group for the Stormont House Agreement; and, since then, they have virtually walked away from it. That is a shameful position for any party leader to adopt.”
“I would have thought that you would be pleased to able to say that you were party to negotiating a deal that allows that amount of money to remain in people's pockets. <BR /> <BR />To conclude my remarks, because this group —”
“Alasdair McDonnell, on behalf of the SDLP, said that he was "very pleased" with the finance and the welfare package. You are very pleased with a package, then, all of a sudden, every day after that you bad-mouth it. Mr McDonnell was also at that meeting with the Secretary or State, Theresa Villiers, and Charlie Flanagan, an Tánaiste. He made the point that he did not think that the deal was comprehensive enough across a range of issues; he mentioned outstanding matters and all the rest of it, which we totally agreed with. However, he also said that the SDLP would welcome the paper and that they would not bad-mouth it. In the last couple of debates, all they have done is bad-mouth it. As I said earlier, you try to have your cake and eat it. You accepted the deal; you were party to negotiating it.”
“All that I can say is this: the five parties sat down and knuckled down to get a way forward on welfare and came up with a package that keeps more or less £600 million in people's pockets over the next number of years. That should be welcomed by people in here and not criticised. It was not on offer before December; that is very clear. <BR /> <BR />I want to make a point, because I have heard all the amendments and I have read all the amendments. Like the Minister, I have heard a lot of discussion and debate over the last couple of weeks. I quoted Mr Nesbitt, who was there when the parties were brought together to look at the final package and to take it at 11·00 am on 23 December. I see amendments from the SDLP. Obviously, the last couple were withdrawn.”
“Let me make it clear: when we look at a tin, and it says "the most vulnerable" on that tin, those are the people we are determined to support. Those are the people we were working for and on behalf of. I am very pleased that the Executive and the five parties in the House agreed that there was a package that we could deliver for the people out there. <BR /> <BR />It is very interesting that, months ago — Mr Agnew referred to it earlier — everybody challenged us against the veracity of the Department's figures. We are now working on the Department's figures, and we are still told that we are wrong. You cannot have it two ways: either the Department's figures are right or they are wrong.”
“Let us not even worry or confuse or bother ourselves about the technicalities around a four-party agreement or a five-party agreement. We had a five-party agreement, and I am glad that we had that. That meant that the five parties committed the Executive and the Assembly to do so much more for people than had been agreed up to December. Before December, we had a package of mitigation measures that were available to the House two years ago but that we did not avail ourselves of. Post the Stormont House Agreement, there is now money on the table for people who, thankfully, will be able to retain it in their pockets. <BR /> <BR />We have talked about the people who are the most vulnerable out there and have engaged with civic society. Every Member and every party in the House talks about the most vulnerable.”