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 12 of 15.
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I have not always played to a packed House, but this probably beats the record. <BR /> <BR />I will wind up on the group 2 debate by restricting my comments to the comments made in respect of the, I think, 14 amendments in the group rather than the Committee's opposition to the clauses. I have already outlined the reasons for that. Of course, the Minister's remarks are well on the record for people to consider. A number of Members have sought clarity and some further information from the Minister. That is on the record for all those who sought it. <BR /> <BR />Dolores Kelly spoke about amendment No 2 to clause 6, which aims to reduce the number of waiting days for entitlement from seven days to three. That was supported by Mr Attwood.”
“It has nothing to do with housing benefit because they will be paying the rent themselves. They will not be in receipt of any benefit, so do not mix up the two.”
“As we speak, there is a far greater demand for one-bedroom accommodation which cannot and will not be met by this Executive, or by the Housing Executive for that matter. There is a great demand for that type of accommodation, irrespective of the bedroom tax. You need to understand that. If you go through every single constituency, you will see that housing associations, the DSD and the Housing Executive are trying to get one-bedroom accommodation units built, in the whole range of constituencies, which are falling foul of objection after objection. <BR /> <BR />Just to make it very clear, our party is involved in no conspiracy to dicky-up the figures or force people into one-bedroom accommodation. I can tell you that — like yourself, I am sure — I represent a lot of single people who are looking for one-bedroom accommodation.”
“I thank the Member, and the Principal Deputy Speaker for his indulgence. This is turning into a debate between you and Sinn Féin which we should probably have outside or somewhere else. You should be dealing with the Bill that is in front of us today, and the mitigation measures that have been agreed by all the parties. All the parties have decided that we will subsidise the bedroom tax to the point where no one who would fall foul of a bedroom tax, as a result of the London-based legislation, will have to pay that burden. As I have said before, I think it is a good thing. <BR /> <BR />You should not mistake the fact that people need to have one-bedroom accommodation. You will know that, if you check your figures. There are Ministers around here who can verify it.”
“What we have is the result of a five-party agreement. We tried to extract money from the British Government, which had no intention of ever giving us any money. Therefore, we had to make choices. You are prepared to make that choice; all the parties around this Chamber have been prepared to make the choice that those who would have suffered the burden of a bedroom tax will not now have to do so. I think that that is a good-news story, rather than people having to squabble in what is really a party-political argument or political point-scoring. That is regrettable because this is a better deal for people. People out there who are suffering through wondering whether they are going to have to pay additional rent or move out of their house now know as a result of this five-party agreement that they will not have to suffer that.”
“I know that there are worse levels of sickness, including mental ill health, not only related to the conflict, but, obviously, that plays a big part." He also repeated that he knows about the difficulties with the stresses in housing because we have a lot of segregated housing areas, and so on. However, at the end of the day, he felt our pain but said that we would have to pay for anything that we wanted to do differently, and that is what we are doing. <BR /> <BR />Whether we like the legislation or not — people all have their views, and so do we — what we have at this time is an agreement for the next number of years under which no one will have to pay the burden of that bedroom tax. That, I think, is one of the most important messages that should come from this Chamber yesterday and today.”
“I am grateful to the Member for giving way. I just want to make sure that we are all on the same wavelength. We stated very clearly — our party and others, and you — from the outset that we were opposed to the bedroom tax. Our principle in all this is that we are opposed to people having to pay the bedroom tax. Yes, we want to abolish that tax and see it gone. We do not want to have it on any legislative or statutory basis, but we ended up with a five-party agreement. <BR /> <BR />Other Members have stood in this Chamber, lauding the good intentions and goodwill of Lord Freud, for example. I made it very clear, having met Lord Freud, that he basically said to all of us, "I feel your pain. I know your circumstances in the North are different. I know that there are worse levels of unemployment.”
“It was at a cost to ourselves. You should remember that. We paid for our democratic mandate with our lives.”
“It was at a cost to ourselves. You remember that.”
“Your party will never be in any Government.”
“The first Welfare Reform Bill, which is causing people to suffer as we speak, never mind the latest one, was introduced by an SDLP Minister by way of accelerated passage with no mitigation measures whatsoever.”
“Given the number of times that the Member has given way, I was fairly confident that he would give way once more, even though we are coming to the close of the debate for this evening. Does the Member agree with me that it is quite interesting, if not ludicrous, that we have listened to the SDLP talk about the need to have a debate? It is obviously very important to do that, but they have said that we need to tease this out and probe that. In actual fact, in June 2007, Ms Ritchie, the then Minister for Social Development, rushed the first Welfare Reform Bill through the House by way of accelerated passage on the basis of the need to protect parity. There were no mitigating measures with parity, no opportunity for anybody to table amendments or to seek clarification.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I know that she has a lot to cover. The Member referred to the bedroom tax and seemed to suggest that she heard that it was dealt with in the Stormont House Agreement, but she does not see anything in front of us. Does the Member, who is the deputy leader of her own party, not accept that her party signed on to the Stormont House Agreement and, in particular, the first bullet point, which was that tenants in social housing will be protected from the bedroom tax? Does the Member, who is the deputy leader of the SDLP, not accept that her party leader, Alasdair McDonnell, signed on to that commitment? It is in black and white in the Stormont House Agreement. How can the Member suggest that she is not quite sure what was agreed?”
“<BR /> <BR />Of course, as I said this morning, it will be a matter for each member of the Committee, and indeed their parties, to take their own view, or that of their party, on these matters, and I hope that I will be able to adequately reflect those views when I wind up the debate on the second group of amendments later this evening. I formally repeat that, as Chair of the Social Development Committee, I will not be expressing opposition to any of the above clauses.”
“The terms "size criteria" and "underoccupancy" particularly raised serious concerns, and the issue has become better known as the bedroom tax. In a nutshell, when a property is deemed to have one extra bedroom, housing benefit will be reduced by 14%, and when there are two extra bedrooms, it will be reduced by 25%. The Committee heard that upwards of 32,500 tenants in the social housing sector will be deemed to be underoccupying and, therefore, subject to the reduction in benefit that I have outlined. <BR />Again, thankfully, as a result of ongoing negotiations over the last couple of years, including in particular the Stormont House Agreement and within the new arrangements under that, we have been able to put in place arrangements that will ensure that no one will be subject to a reduction in their housing benefit.”
“<BR /> <BR />At the time, the Department noted that almost 97% of the people to whom that provision applies would not be affected by the change and that new claimants may qualify for income-related ESA. However, given the comparatively low cost of maintaining the current provision, with some groups estimating the cost at £390,000 per year at the time, the Committee recommended that the Minister should discuss the issue at the Executive Committee, with a view to making funds available to maintain the current arrangements. <BR /> <BR />Clause 69, titled "Housing benefit: determination of appropriate maximum", generated considerable debate at Committee during its consideration of the Bill and has often been in the media ever since.”
“I note that, in recent discussions, it became clear that 80% of people return to work within a year of first making a claim, so the costs associated with a longer period would not be as great as first envisaged. This is good news. <BR /> <BR />In its report, the Committee also noted that, until clause 54 came into operation, there was provision under paragraph 4 of schedule 1 to the Welfare Reform Act 2007 for claimants to qualify for contributory ESA on the basis of youth without having to meet the paid National Insurance contributions condition. At the time, the Committee noted that no new claims would be allowed when that clause came into operation. The Committee was particularly concerned about the impact that this would have on young people with disabilities.”
“Those specifically related to the situation where one partner in a relationship was prepared to sign a claimant commitment but the other person was not, and that, as a result, neither would receive a payment. This was a result of the requirement for joint claims to be made, and the Committee believed that to be unfair. The Committee was also concerned about the removal of the severe disability premium under clause 12 and, therefore, sought to oppose it. <BR /> <BR />Clause 52 refers to the period of entitlement for contributory allowance. In its report, the Committee asked the Minister to explore the possibility of extending that period for more than 12 months.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. As I said this morning, it is not my intention to oppose any of the clauses on behalf of the Committee, but I think that it is important to remind the House what the concerns were. That is in appreciation of all the Members who participated in the discussions and deliberations on the Bill and, of course, equally importantly, all the stakeholders who gave very generously of their time to contribute to the discussion and debate in the Chamber and the Committee's deliberations. <BR /> <BR />I want to place on record my thanks on behalf of the Committee to the staff, the Committee Clerks, the Committee members and all those who came to the Committee and expressed their concerns about and views on the Bill. <BR /> <BR />The Committee originally had serious concerns regarding clause 4.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I remind the House of the fact that the Committee expressed opposition to a number of clauses in this group. Those were clauses 4, 10, 12, 52, 54 and 69. I would like to outline —”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Does he recall that, when he held bilaterals with my party during the Social Development Committee's deliberations on the Bill, he was prepared to sign the petition of concern against the bedroom tax but was not prepared to agree to any other mitigating measure? In fact, since that time, which is two years ago, you have not brought forward a single amendment. It seems to be a bit of a contradiction. Has it taken you two years to get a conscience on some of these matters?”
“Unfortunately, because others want to grandstand and, rather than look after the most vulnerable, want to promote themselves, I have departed from what I had wanted to do. As I say, all Members will have the opportunity to address all the issues today. I wanted to place on record the behaviour, attitude of and role that was played by the Ulster Unionist Party, which is leading the debate on this group this morning.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I concur with your remarks. I had wanted to come here this morning in a position to welcome the fact that an agreement was reached by all the parties, in the days before Christmas, that represents a far better deal for the people who we collectively, as parties, represent. That deal allows an awful lot more money to be retained by the people who we represent, and that would not otherwise have been available except for the hard work that was carried out. I would have much preferred to have been coming into the Chamber this morning to give a very clear, positive and constructive message to the wider public that we collectively represent that we have managed to broker a deal that is far above anything anywhere else on these islands and that I am glad that we have been a very important part of that.”
“In fact, only in the last number of weeks, the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party was telling everybody, "We could not get any more money. There was nothing more that we could do. We had a good deal as it was". Unfortunately for the Ulster Unionist Party, which, in grandstanding —”
“During those bilaterals, the Ulster Unionist Party never made one single commitment to address any of those issues. I personally had to go to Mr Mike Nesbitt and ask him to give support to his party colleague Michael Copeland, the Member on the Social Development Committee, who told us in the Committee that he was not allowed by the party to make any commitment in relation to the Welfare Reform Bill. <BR /> <BR />I stand and accuse the Ulster Unionist leader and his party of an absolute abject failure of integrity on that matter. That party stood on a pledge to slash public funding and slash welfare benefits to the most vulnerable people out there and was not prepared to make one single commitment to address it.”
“He is a Member representing a party that was joined at the hip with the Tory Government in London as UCUNF (Ulster Conservatives and Unionists - New Force), which promoted the policy and the pledge that has had the effect of imposing swingeing cuts, not only in terms of welfare but to public services, that people right across our community have had to endure. I am delighted to be able to say that other parties, standing against Ulster Unionist commitments at that time, addressed a lot of those concerns. <BR /> <BR />I want to place something on the record because it is important that the public are aware of all this. During the Committee deliberations on the matter, I conducted a number of bilaterals with all the parties represented in the House, including the Ulster Unionist Party.”
“The Committee and others will remain vigilant as to the effects of welfare reform as it progresses through the Assembly in the time ahead, after the Bill is dealt with and disposed of. <BR /> <BR />Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, I would also like to make a few remarks as an individual MLA on behalf of my party. Go raibh maith agat for that. I will be brief. I want to make a couple of points in relation to the remarks made by Mr Roy Beggs of the Ulster Unionist Party, who was the first to speak on this group. The remarks of the Member in the House this morning beggar belief.”
“A whole range of organisations made considered submissions, written and oral, to the Committee. It is important to record that the members unanimously agreed a report, which I have addressed in the last few minutes. Therefore, I thank all the people who participated and, in my view, helped to shape the debate from that time. Even though two years have elapsed, all of us will be very pleased to acknowledge that there has been considerable progress made against all the concerns expressed by the stakeholders and the Committee. There is no doubt that much work yet needs to be done.”
“On that basis, the Committee has mandated me, as Chair, to record to the House that it will not be formally recording opposition to any of the clauses during today's debate. <BR /> <BR />Let me place on record my thanks to the Committee for the very extensive deliberation it gave to the Bill at that time. An exhaustive amount of work was carried out to make sure that all aspects of the Bill were considered and appropriate recommendations made to the Minister on the basis of those discussions. I thank in particular all the stakeholders who came and gave evidence. I remind Members that that included people from the church and faith-based organisations, the community and voluntary sector, the advice sector, ethnic minority organisations, the Human Rights Commission, the Equality Commission and trade unions.”
“However, there has undoubtedly been significant progress on this matter and others relating to the Committee’s opposition to clauses, which I will come to as the debate develops. <BR /> <BR />Therefore, as I noted, I leave Committee members to decide for themselves regarding the current position vis à vis that taken by the Committee two years ago. In other words, and very simply, given the fact that the Committee expressed opposition to a number of the Bill's clauses, it took the view that, in the light of the Stormont House Agreement, most — if not all — of those concerns have been addressed in one way or another. Whatever about the precise arguments around the legislation, either by way of legislation and amendments tabled by the Minister and/or the mitigation measures, most of the concerns of members have been met.”
“The Committee’s concern at the time related to the flexibility that could be applied to payments in terms of the regularity of payments and the splitting of payments. It favoured an approach where the payment would be made twice a month, with an option for a payment to be split between claimants in a household, rather than a single payment per household. In that latter instance, the Committee shared the concerns of stakeholders that having to nominate a member of the household to receive the payment could have a negative impact on the financial independence of women in particular and, therefore, a potentially negative impact on children, given that, in our society, it is still largely the case that women tend to be the main carer and/or the second earner in the family.”
“The Committee agreed yesterday that, given the time that has elapsed since the publication of its report and, more importantly, the fact that we have the five-party Stormont House Agreement, which has addressed many of the concerns relating to welfare reform, the Committee is content that it is for individual members to consider their position in relation to the Committee’s opposition to clauses, referred to in the Marshalled List of amendments. <BR /> <BR />I highlight to the House that the Committee opposed 10 clauses in total. In this group of amendments, the Committee opposes clause 99, which deals with payments to joint claimants. There will, obviously, be more detailed discussion of all those matters in the course of the debate.”
“The Committee felt that that allowed the Minister the flexibility to engage with his Executive colleagues on the potential to fund its recommendations and, therefore, offered the best possibility for adoption of a range of mitigation measures to address the Committee’s concerns and those of stakeholders. <BR /> <BR />I do not think that any of us would have guessed that those discussions would only be finalised two years after the Committee published its report, but I believe that the outcome of the Stormont House negotiations has in many ways superseded the concerns highlighted by the Committee in its report. Indeed, the Committee met yesterday and was briefed by the Department on the Minister’s amendments. The Committee noted those.”
“The Committee recognised the fact that the Department for Social Development could not fund those measures from its own budget. The Committee therefore agreed that any recommendations that had costs associated with them would have to be discussed and agreed by the Executive and all the parties represented on it. Therefore, where the Committee made recommendations that had associated costs, members agreed to oppose those related clauses, without prejudice to the outcome of the Minister’s discussions and individual positions that may be taken by members at a later stage of the Bill process.”
“<BR /> <BR />Indeed, Members may recall that the Committee was sufficiently concerned that it agreed a motion under Standing Order 35 to refer the Bill to an Ad Hoc Committee on conformity with human rights and equality requirements. However, the Committee was also acutely aware of the potential cost implications of making changes to the Bill, although it must be said that Committee members were never truly convinced that they had received definitive figures from the Department. It is important to note that the Committee adopted a flexible position, if you like, on the best approach to address the financial cost of possible mitigation measures.”
“It is important to restate that obviously these concerns about the impact were shared across the political spectrum. There was deep concern across the parties in the Committee for Social Development at the time. That concern, which was shared by the wide range of stakeholders who gave evidence to the Committee, was that this radical reform of the welfare system, if left unchecked, could seriously impact on the most vulnerable groups in society: children, the sick, lone parents, persons with a disability and so on. The Committee was also very sympathetic to the arguments that were made around access by claimants to independent advice.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. <BR /> <BR />The Assembly will be aware that the Committee for Social Development produced a report on the Welfare Reform Bill two years ago in February 2013. The Committee held 22 meetings to consider the Bill. We received written submissions from 55 organisations and individuals and took oral evidence from 31 of those organisations. The Committee therefore gave the Bill extensive consideration and made a number of recommendations on foot of the evidence that it received. In doing so, it also opposed a number of clauses, one of which, clause 99, is in this group. I will come to that in just a moment. <BR /> <BR />It is fair to say that during the Committee Stage, the Committee was unanimous in its views regarding the potential impact of the Bill.”
“However, the Committee makes it clear to the House that we will endeavour to complete our work before that date. Go raibh maith agat.”
“Building in some extra time would ensure that it can give due consideration to any evidence received. As the House will know, it is, of course, vital that the Committee scrutinise the Bill effectively to a standard that the House would consider adequate and the public would expect. <BR /> <BR />There is no way of knowing how many responses from stakeholders will be received before 16 February or how many sessions will be required to hear oral evidence from witnesses on the basis of that. With all that in mind, the Committee agreed that it was important to build in sufficient time to address those various unknowns. The Committee, therefore, agreed to ask the Assembly for an extension to the Committee Stage until 28 May 2015. On behalf of the Committee, I ask the House to support the motion.”
“The Committee Stage of the Regeneration Bill began on 24 January 2015 and is due to conclude on 3 March. The Committee issued a call for evidence on 23 January, and this is due to end on 16 February. The Committee received a pre-legislative briefing from the Department on 8 January, and issues were raised at an early stage. The Committee must give those issues closer scrutiny with the Department and the stakeholders. The Committee will endeavour, of course, to complete the Bill in as short a time frame as possible. However, an extension will allow for the possibility of any delays due to conflicting Committee business, such as the Pensions Bill and other ongoing work. The Committee expects a greater response to the call for evidence for the Bill, given the nature of the content.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I beg to move”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. I know that he has a lot of ground to cover. Just a moment ago, the Minister referred to the fractured nature of our education system and the differences that are there, but he just concluded the Stormont House negotiations in which he was a participant. We actually got almost half a billion pounds additional from the British Government because the five parties united on the argument that we are a different society. We are coming out of a conflict, and we have differences. Does the logic not then follow that St Mary's training college, which is part of that plateau, should be given the support it deserves? Any cut to the premia is a totally disproportionate cut to that institution.”
“— an attack on the Catholic education ethos, which is held in so much esteem in the broader community.”
“People in the broader nationalist and Catholic population will see this ongoing assault on St Mary's as an attack on a particular community and particularly —”
“<BR /> <BR />We made a constructive point to Minister Farry that, if you are serious about entering discussions with St Mary's about further integration with the other institutions and universities for teacher training, you would not pull the rug from under an existing institution that is providing excellent training. You would nurture and consolidate St Mary's as you enter into negotiations or discussions with it about what future steps might be taken. I do not like to have to say it, but my mind is very clear that this is an Alliance Party ideological mission. It is not the wish of the vast majority of people here, despite the Alliance Party's mandate, which it is entitled to. The wishes of the vast majority of people who do not support the Alliance Party also need to be taken into consideration.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh LeasCheann Comhairle. As I said, I was left in no doubt at the meeting yesterday with Minister Farry that he is on a mission to close St Mary's training college as we all know it. I make the point again: this is neither Dublin nor Glasgow. I have heard — the Minister made the point yesterday at our meeting — in discussions with Queen's University or the University of Ulster that those institutions might take up the mantle of providing a similar education. A US president turned a sod in west Belfast when Queen's University was supposed to be coming there, but that never happened. I have no confidence in any of those institutions delivering what St Mary's delivers now.”
“It is also a threat to the success of future generations of the Irish language community, which is very much a burgeoning sector in the education system. <BR /> <BR />The Minister outlined yesterday his view that the experience in Dublin and Glasgow had shown that delivery models for that type of education could be changed. Pat Sheehan has already made the point that this is neither Dublin nor Glasgow. You only had to listen to the previous debate, which went on for an hour and a half, about the need for flags on driving licences to let you know that we are still far from what might be described as a normal society.”
“As I said, I am very disappointed about that, even though perhaps I should not be. Having spoken to the Minister yesterday and listened to his logic and arguments, I was left with the clear impression that he is on a mission to close St Mary's training college as we all know it and have known it for many years. <BR /> <BR />Colleagues have already made the point that we see that as a threat against the choice of the vast majority of people not only in west Belfast, where the college is based, but much further afield throughout the broader Catholic and nationalist community across the North. We see it as an assault on that ethos, which is very strongly valued and remains the choice of most parents in that community and will, I presume, remain so for some time.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I would just like to add a few words to my colleagues' comments so far. I thank Jennifer McCann for bringing the motion to the House this evening. <BR /> <BR />The point that I want to make was rehearsed with the Minister yesterday at the meeting that other colleagues have referred to. Since the establishment of the Assembly, St Mary's training college has been under threat from a number of parties in this institution. I was very disappointed — maybe I should not have been — when, at the meeting yesterday, I was left in no doubt that the threat to St Mary's training college under the leadership of this Minister is probably the most sustained and gravest threat against the survival of St Mary's training college.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Has the Minister given any thought to expanding or developing the role of PCSPs in the broader community?”