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 13 of 15.
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I have somewhat of a follow-on from the previous question. Does the Minister have any idea of how the money against the corporation tax reduction might be offset against the block grant?”
“He has made it very clear to the Committee and the House that the Department will work with the Committee, all Members and all parties across the Chamber over the next period to make sure that we get the Bill into law so that we can move ahead in April 2016 and transfer the powers to local government to allow councils to be much more effective and responsive in tackling need in their area. Obviously, there are issues around transferring the budgets. There is a mechanism and a formula for doing that that the Minister will deal with in due course. <BR /> <BR />On the basis that we want to see successful legislation enacted, the Social Development Committee will want to work cooperatively with the Minister and the Department in the time ahead to finalise the Bill.”
“It is important to state that, although they were concerned about how those powers might be utilised in local government, Committee members wanted to see some consistency right across the 11 councils. The Department and the Minister retain policy powers, and they will look at ways of monitoring local government to see how those powers are exercised in the time ahead. <BR /> <BR />It suffices to make the point that the Committee raised concerns with the Department, a number of which have been fully addressed today by the Minister.”
“As the Minister said, a number of those powers, particularly the regulatory powers, will be introduced at a further stage. Most people would like the regulatory powers to be transferred to local government, and there certainly would be no obvious contention on that. However, that was a wise decision, and the Committee was of the view that the Minister's decision to proceed with the Regeneration Bill on that basis was correct. The Committee will want to work with the Minister and his Department over the next weeks and months to make sure that we get the Bill right. <BR /> <BR />The Minister fully addressed some of the concerns in his opening remarks around the question of trying to make sure that each council adopts the powers progressively and proceeds on the basis of seeking to tackle disadvantage in its area.”
“Whilst Committee members addressed a number of concerns — I will touch on a few of those in a moment — nevertheless, the Committee unanimously wants to see the Bill being given a fair wind, local government being effective and powers being transferred successfully. Most Members will have had their political origin in local government and will be acutely aware that councillors work with local communities, are very close to the ground and have a clear understanding of what is required in local areas. However, they often do not have the necessary powers to change those wishes into reality. Hopefully, the Bill will help them to do that. <BR /> <BR />The Minister has outlined the process of getting the Bill to where it is, which has included removing the housing elements from the original intention of the Bill.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I also congratulate you on your elevation to the post of Speaker. I have no doubt that you will do a very good job along with the Deputy Speakers and the Principal Deputy Speaker. <BR /> <BR />Very briefly, I would like to thank the Minister from bringing the Second Stage of the Regeneration Bill to the House. I welcome the vast bulk of his comments. <BR /> <BR />To repeat, on 8 January the Committee received a comprehensive briefing from departmental officials, who outlined the key areas of powers that would be transferred. Ultimately, the Committee agreed in principle with the principles of the Bill.”
“I appeal to the parties around the Chamber today: let us try to build on the relative success that we had at the end of 2014, two days before Christmas, and let us make 2015 a better, more constructive year for all the people we represent.”
“<BR /> <BR />I conclude my remarks by saying that there is nothing smug in the motion. It is genuinely intended that all the parties stick together, because we have proven that, by doing so, we can do a better job for the people we represent. When I listened to the restaurateur from Belfast talking about leaving here because she was fed up, I could actually understand that and empathise with that lady. There is a person who came in to our city, has been made every welcome in our city and has made a very successful business in this city, but she is fed up when she hears the negativity and all the obstacles that people put in her way.”
“I am interested when I hear Members say that they have talked to public-sector workers who tell them what could be stripped out of Departments. Let them tell us what that is. That presumably means that functions that Departments hold and staff employed by Departments will have to go. Let them get up and tell us what and who they are. There is no point in saying that here. I have heard Members here asking questions, but I do not hear many answers from the same Members. I implore all the parties to believe in ourselves collectively. We have a strength in working together. All the people we represent out want us to work together and, I believe, demand that we do. We have a lot of challenges on the road ahead, and, working together, we can minimise those challenges and do a better job for the people we collectively represent out there.”
“We were all told that if we did not get off first base when it came to sorting welfare and sorting the budgets that were coming up in the next number of years, we were going nowhere. That was right, because let us remember one thing: it is right and legitimate to scrutinise all the budgets and make sure that we are delivering core public services, especially when we determine what they are.”
“However, that seemed to stop if you needed welfare support, because some of the people who making those fine speeches to those workers were not there when it came to supporting their welfare needs. <BR /> <BR />The motion is trying to bring us all back to where we were at the end of 2014 when we reached an agreement. It was not comprehensive but it was an important agreement nevertheless. We have dealt with the welfare issue and the money, and all the parties around the Executive table bought into the welfare arguments: they accepted the welfare deal and the Budget deal. So, let nobody imply here today that they did not buy into the financial package or the welfare agreements that were reached because they did. Those are the facts of the matter.”
“<BR /> <BR />We have no problem, as a party, with the Executive seeking to define what core public services are. I can tell you one thing: Sinn Féin believes fervently that welfare support is an equally important public service. It would be reprehensible, and we made this argument repeatedly last year against the odds, for any party to pit someone who is in need of welfare against someone else who is in a job, because the person who is in a job may well need welfare at some stage. I saw all the parties in here queuing up to shed tears when people in the DVLA and the tobacco workers were losing their jobs. You could hear all the passion in the speeches in here. Members were saying, "We're sorry for them", and, "We'll do all we can for you".”
“No one can say that we did not get additional money into our budget: we did, and that is a simple matter of fact. Did we get enough? Certainly not. <BR /> <BR />So, our argument, as a party, is that we did well — we certainly did better — when we stuck together. We are saying that we must stick together to do better again on behalf of the people we represent. We can engage in political point-scoring if that is what we want to do. All Members — and I include Jim Allister and independent Members of the House in this — want to be able to go out into their constituencies and assure their constituents that they will get the types of public services that they are entitled to. No Member of this House — Jim Allister, Basil McCrea, John McCallister or Steven Agnew — is against the principle of providing the best services to our general public.”
“<BR /> <BR />I wish we had come together a lot sooner, and I said so at one of the round table meetings after David Cameron and Enda Kenny left here. Our best effort was when we stuck together, and it was important that we did that. When we stuck together, we compiled an argument that was cogent, justifiable and legitimate and put directly to David Cameron the demand that he had to shoulder responsibility for his Government's neglect and their ideological Tory cuts being imposed on the people we represent. That was our best chance to make a difference. So, when David Cameron hightailed it out of here, everybody thought that there was no further progress to be made. But, when the parties got together, although it was difficult, we made some progress.”
“That is the predicament that all the parties have had to listen to. <BR /> <BR />My opening remark was that sometimes the mind boggles during debates in here. We have had representatives of three parties this afternoon speaking as if they are not part of the Executive. This motion commends and highlights, and it is very important to rehearse this, that we made our best effort when the five parties around the Executive table came together before Christmas. I agree with Dolores Kelly: I would have loved it to happen a year or two years ago, but it did not. It happened the week before Christmas, and it is important that we tell the people out there that we made the best fist of our arguments when we came together.”
“<BR /> <BR />The motion does not, in any way, suggest that we solved all our problems pre-Christmas; far from it. We still have a lot of work to do. The point that I want to make this afternoon is that it is absolutely legitimate and right and proper that Members from the parties here would want to scrutinise every Department's budget to make sure that the right spends are being embarked on and that we are getting value for money and using our money wisely on a strategic basis. But, we should not do that at the expense of losing sight of our overall predicament. As I said a minute ago, our overall predicament is that we have had the block grant from London stripped bare over the last number of years as a result of Tory ideological cuts by the millionaires who sit around the Cabinet in London.”
“<BR /> <BR />This motion tries to build on that bit of positivity because, whilst we did not get a comprehensive agreement — we fell well short of that — I do not think anybody can suggest anything other than the fact that we made some considerable progress. It is quite clear what the motion seeks to do. Far from what Mr Allister said, there is nothing smug intended in its words, I can tell you. My party, which represents quite a lot of people in our community, does not like or enjoy having to rehearse the fact that we do not have enough money in the Budget to service the needs of the people we represent. We are dealing with a Budget that has been stripped bare over the last number of years. We take no smugness out of that, I can assure you.”
“However, people persevered and my party went into those talks, as did others, with the hope and the demand that we could reach a comprehensive agreement. <BR /> <BR />We had always made it very clear that we had two major problems: first, that there was not enough finance in the system due to years of Tory cuts from London and the institutions were becoming unsustainable; and secondly, we had a failure of power sharing. In other words, politics was failing as well. There were parallel problems of not enough money and not enough political goodwill in the system to make things work. It was quite a depressing period for everyone, and particularly for the people we represent. The wider general public expect and want to hear that politicians are working together to tackle problems and not simply rehearse them year in, year out.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Sometimes the mind boggles whenever you listen to a debate in this Chamber, and today is almost one of those days. My party's motion is trying to build on the bit of positivity that came out of the talks at the end of 2014, two days before Christmas. It was a process of very difficult talks, as other Members, not least Dolores, mentioned. We have put a very difficult year or more behind us. <BR /> <BR />Whenever David Cameron and the Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, hightailed it out of town on the Friday morning, nobody in these islands and certainly not in and around Belfast or in the North would have predicted that there would be an agreement. In fact, I think everybody was quite certain that the talks were over, it was all a failure and, there you go again, nothing could be rescued from the fire.”
“We recognise that the Budget cuts come directly from London. The unity of purpose shown in the recent talks proves that, when all the parties here work together, we can get a better result and a better deal for the people we represent. Long may that continue and be improved on.”
“Any party or representative in the House who wishes to acknowledge or suggest otherwise or to blame people in the Chamber, for I have no doubt that all the Ministers want to provide the best services possible to our communities —”
“As I said, the Committee looks forward to hearing the outworking of the Budget discussions, which we will no doubt hear fairly soon. The Committee recognises the difficult position that the Department and the Minister are in but makes it very clear that it also wants the most vulnerable to be protected in the communities that we all collectively represent. <BR /> <BR />I will say a few words on behalf of my party. All of us know that this is a difficult Budget. It is a one-year Budget. We know that it is the result of years of British government cuts coming directly from London to our block grant. That is an inescapable. When we talk about "inescapables", that is one of them.”
“As I said, the Committee's response to the Department made it clear that it was very concerned that cuts to disadvantaged communities, if you like, could be much more devastating. In an area of disadvantage, which the Department has a statutory obligation to tackle, a small amount of money taken from a project could kill it off; for example, the loss of one post could kill off an entire project. There are choices to be made. We welcome the fact that the Minister and his officials were clear that they wanted to protect the most vulnerable sectors of our community, and we say that those choices have to be made and, hopefully, the Department and the Minister, in conjunction with the Minister of Finance, can meet the needs of the most vulnerable in our communities.”
“We were certainly led to believe that a reduction in the number of posts would clearly have an impact on services. While the cuts imposed on the Social Security Agency, for example, would have no impact at all on benefit claimants, it certainly would impact on the service delivered and how long it might take to resolve claims and so on. That could have some impacts.”
“Officials presented projections that several hundred jobs would go. When that was queried, we were told that some of the jobs were "posts". I asked what that actually meant and was told that there are jobs, then there are posts and then there are vacancies. Jobs have people in them, and others are posts that are sometime vacant. We asked the department to come back as early as possible to give a clearer definition of what all that means. Are hundreds of posts unfilled? Do they need to be filled, or should they be written off the baseline? That is a big discussion that needs to be had across the public sector, and we are keen to hear more information about that.”
“Maybe the information could have been more fulsome, but maybe part of the nature of the beast is that there needs to be a lot more discussion across all Departments. Since it is going to be done on the basis of a voluntary severance scheme, it is not yet clear, from Department to Department, where all the job reductions may come from.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee was pleased when Department officials made it clear, on behalf of the Minister, that they wanted to protect the social fund, the Supporting People programme, the provision of social housing, community need and disadvantaged communities. However, there were of course a number of proposals in the draft Budget that contained a reduction in public-sector jobs and cuts across the range of the Department; for example, to housing, the Social Security Agency and the community sector. The Committee was very keen to hear more information on the jobs projected to be lost. The Department officials gave figures of several hundred. Having queried it, I think that members were a little surprised to hear that.”
“As a Committee, we recognise that there is a smaller amount of money in the block grant from which we can provide the types of services that people have become rightly and justifiably used to receiving over the last number of years. We anticipated that none of us could, with hand on heart, entirely welcome the draft Budget proposals. We will probably find that the Budget itself is difficult. It is a one-year Budget; we know the reasons for that, and I do not want to rehearse all the arguments that a number of Members put forward earlier in the debate and that others will no doubt make following my presentation. Suffice to say, the Committee was concerned with a number of the proposals. The Committee agreed to respond and submitted a formal response to the Finance and Personnel Committee. That is a matter of record.”
“However, it is fair to say that some of the detail we got from Department officials was necessarily vague. Certainly the Committee did ask for further information, and I will go through that in a moment or two. We want to thank the officials for coming to the Committee on 4 December, on behalf of the Minister, to provide a briefing on the proposals. They made it very clear that they were draft proposals and of course the Committee makes all its comments in that context. Hopefully it will not end up that these are the final proposals for the Budget. <BR /> <BR />The Committee acknowledged the difficult position that the Department and the Minister were in.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Speaking on behalf of the Social Development Committee, I want to first thank the Finance and Personnel Committee for tabling the motion today. It is an opportunity for Committees and Members to put a number of positions to the House and for Members to take note whilst deliberations are ongoing — hopefully concluding shortly — to agree a final Budget proposal to come to the House for proper and full debate. <BR /> <BR />The Finance Committee requested that all Statutory Committees provide a submission, if they wished to do so, by Friday 5 December. The Department officials were with us on Thursday 4 December. Therefore, the Committee did not have an awful lot of time in which to respond to the briefing in any real detail.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply. Does she have any plans or can she give any consideration to, if you like, community benefits resulting from such developments on the Department's estate?”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Given that the original question dealt with allegations levelled in the 'Spotlight' programme, will the deputy First Minister give us his views on those allegations?”
“Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for that response. I think it probably continues to add to the confusion, with respect. Can the Minister give the House an assurance that he will continue to liaise with all the other relevant Ministers to ensure that there is consistency in how councils engage with arm's-length bodies that have to relate to the new district councils in the new dispensation?”
“On behalf of the Social Development Committee, and with the Simon Community and the Housing Executive, I helped launch an app relating to homelessness a few days ago in the Long Gallery. As part and parcel of that, and in the run up to Christmas, which is poignant for many people who are homeless, it is timely that we launched the app and, more importantly, that we consider this statutory rule. <BR /> <BR />Following what the Minister has outlined and consideration by the Committee, and knowing the importance that the Committee has attached to the issue, we are willing and more than keen to commend the rule to the House.”
“The proposal is to amend the domestic emergency provisions of the jobseeker's allowance regulations so that, if they are applied because of a claimant's homelessness, advisers are allowed reasonable flexibility to treat claimants as meeting the job-seeking conditions for periods of longer than one week, with no cap on the number of occasions that it can be applied. On that basis, the proposals are clearly to be welcomed. Making those additional easements will help reduce the pressure on people who are already homeless and under significant stress as a result of that. <BR /> <BR />I remind the House that the rule coming to the Assembly this week is timely, in that it is homelessness awareness week.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for introducing the regulations to the House. The Committee for Social Development considered the Department's proposal to make the regulations at its meeting on 26 June and the resulting statutory rule at its meeting on 3 July 2014. The Committee was of course supportive of the regulations. The Committee did note that the regulations will introduce, as the Minister said, an easement that will enable certain homeless claimants to be treated as available for and actively seeking employment for a temporary period. <BR /> <BR />It is good to hear that the regulations have been made as a direct result of informal discussions between the Department and various stakeholders from the homeless and voluntary sectors in the broader community.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Given some of the allegations, can the Commission member advise the House of how the Commission intends to deal with the question of unregulated family employment, of which there seems to have been quite a number of incidents, and how that squares with fair employment legislation?”
“I thank the Minister for his response. I appreciate the budgetary problems that he and others in the Executive face at this time. Will he elaborate on whether he is in a position to engage further with the EU Commission to look at other ways in which to maximise the drawdown of funds for such programmes?”
“Like the Member who spoke previously, I entirely understand the difficult decisions that had to be made by the Minister. To what extent will public safety determine the nature of the street lighting programme and where repairs might be carried out?”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for that response. Does he not accept the fact that the regrettable withdrawal of funding from those bodies will harm their ability to investigate historical incidents in particular, thereby continuing to deny access to justice and truth to the many families who seek it?”
“It is assured from the Department’s regulatory impact assessment that the impact of the regulations on business, charities or voluntary bodies is beneficial. They ensure that pension schemes that have treated benefits as money purchase can continue revaluing benefits in accordance with the rules of the scheme, rather than having to comply with existing legislative requirements for benefits that are not money purchase. They also ensure that decisions on affected benefits made by the board of the Pension Protection Fund are subject to review. In conclusion, the Committee for Social Development recommends that the statutory rule be confirmed by the Assembly.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Committee for Social Development considered the Department’s proposal to make the Pensions (2012 Act) (Consequential and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations at its meeting on 19 June 2014 and considered the statutory rule at its meeting on 4 September. It was supportive of the regulations, as the Minister has already pointed out quite comprehensively. The Committee noted that the rule will make consequential and supplementary provision in the light of the commencement of section 27 of the Pensions Act 2012. Section 27 obviously clarifies the definition of money purchase benefits in existing law. <BR /> <BR />The Committee acknowledges the positive impact of the regulations, which came into operation on 27 July and are broadly technical in nature.”
“Has there been any action to address the tracing or assessing of victims' records?”
“On a point of order, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. A Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle, I apologise to the House and to the Agriculture Minister for not being in my place when I was called for a question for oral answer this afternoon.”
“— accessing resources. Clearly, we all have a job to do — all of us together, across all the parties — to deliver the best services and the maximum resources that we can for those victims and survivors of the conflict who require them.”
“That is down to the fact that there is a finite budget, which I fully understand. That is just one sibling in one family, from a range of families, who is disqualified from getting any support at this point — even different levels of support for members of her family — because of the finite budget and the means testing associated with —”
“We have to try to continue to monitor whether the services now available are doing the job that they are required to do — there is still much work to do to improve that service — and what additional resources we might need in the time ahead to address the needs of victims and survivors. <BR /> <BR />By way of illustration, I will deal with one case, which I raised recently at the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. It involves a lady whose father died when she was 15 years of age. He died as a result of the conflict, in a bar bombing in Belfast. Her brother was shot dead in a sectarian incident. Another of her brothers was seriously injured in the same incident. Yet she, as one of a number of siblings in that family, cannot access any support.”
“Other Members made their own little remarks and, if any victims and survivors are listening in or read the report of the debate, they will make their own mind up. <BR /> <BR />Our party is determined to continue to work in the Department, under our leadership opportunity through Martin McGuinness, and through the Committee. Unanimously, across all the parties, the Committee has been resolute in recent times in trying to make sure that the Victims and Survivors Service is fit for the job that it has to do, which is a very difficult and challenging job. We have to try to maximise the resources available for victims and survivors. As I said, I, like other Members, welcome that we have managed to increase the resources. However, we know that the demand continues to increase.”
“As I said, we all understand that they need the maximum volume of quality support and services that we can endeavour to deliver for them. <BR /> <BR />The proposer of the motion started off by saying that he wanted to be positive, and then introduced quite a number of negatives, not least by trying to excuse himself from walking away from the Haass and O'Sullivan proposals, which, if we had remained united and stuck together — three parties did agree with the proposals — would have given us one hell of a better opportunity to go and get the additional resources that we all agree we need. I rebuke the proposer of the motion for introducing politics into what should be a non-partisan discussion. It is regrettable that that happened.”
“In Committee, we all took the view that there is an awful lot more that we can and need to do to support the broader victims sector. God knows that we know that there are very many disparities in the sector. I do not want to address any of them. Some Members have already talked about the different categories of victims, as they have been described in the past, with different outcomes. Our job now, in the context of trying to support victims and survivors, is to get them the best service that we possibly can. I look forward to the Minister outlining this afternoon the efforts that have been made in the last number of years, and that will continue to be made, to make sure that we can deliver the best possible services to victims and survivors.”