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 14 of 15.
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I want to make a few remarks in the spirit of how the previous Member to speak concluded his. First, I do not, for a number of reasons, think that it was necessary for the motion to come to the Chamber today at all. Of course, my party has agreed to support it and certainly supports the sentiment behind it. <BR /> <BR />It is very unfortunate that a number of Members tried to politicise the debate, given that we all know that, in recent times, the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister has been very diligent and robust in examining the situation of the victims sector, not least the problems associated with moving from one system to another. We had the funding issues, which people acknowledged have significantly increased in the past number of years.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Minister may have alluded to this in his last response, but can he review the rate relief scheme so that we can ensure that we maximise the survival rates for businesses, particularly in the light of the ongoing financial difficulties?”
“We believe that it is essential that we politically unite in the House against the cuts and for the people we represent. <BR /> <BR />If Minister McCausland believes that the Westminster proposals are now acceptable, he should introduce the legislation in the House and allow all the representatives to declare their hand, tell the people where they stand and democratically decide the fate of the Bill. Sinn Féin believes — I say this to all Members of the House — that it can make a difference if we stand together united in common purpose in a mature, rational but resolute challenge to the British Government's welfare cuts agenda. <BR /> <BR />I recommend the motion and reject the amendment.”
“Imposing welfare cuts, fines or clawbacks of £87 million or £100-plus million will be another burden and, in our view, a burden too far for those communities. So, in essence, we have to address two key problems: a serious deficit in the Budget as a result of British Tory cuts to the block grant; and a further double whammy on the people we represent due to the benefit cuts. Those are two essential issues that people here continually try to confuse either themselves with or certainly the public with, and they have to be addressed. <BR /> <BR />My party has made it very clear that we are not in favour of these cuts proposed by the Tories in London, and we are at one on this with many voices across our communities. It is our job to protect our communities against these cuts, and we believe that we can.”
“You will have the opportunity to speak. Thank you. <BR /> <BR />The DUP amendment essentially acknowledges and accepts that there are very negative aspects of the proposed welfare reform agenda that is coming from Westminster. It then simply hypes the package of mitigating measures and calls on us to implement the Welfare Reform Bill. Bizarrely, in my reading of it, the amendment really says that we should implement the cuts, which the DUP knows will badly affect many in this community, in order not to badly affect many in this community. It just does not make sense. <BR /> <BR />One thing should be made clear to the House by all the parties. Cuts are being imposed on services across all the Departments exclusively due to the real reductions in the block grant over a period of years.”
“We stand beside and support the calls that have been made by our local trade unions, our church leaders, our charities, the NGOs and the wide range of community representatives who work with hard-pressed families and communities daily. I remind Members that all those groups attended the Assembly and gave evidence directly to the Social Development Committee when we took evidence on the Bill last year. I simply cannot understand why any political party that purports to represent those same communities can advocate imposing those cuts. <BR /> <BR />The DUP amendment essentially acknowledges and accepts that there are very negative aspects of the proposed —”
“<BR /> <BR />While welcome, the measures will not address the fact that, according to representatives of the Social Security Agency in their day one briefing to the Committee for Social Development, the cuts from the Welfare Reform Bill will amount to somewhere in the region of £450 million. They told Committee members that and have made that publicly clear. That money will be taken directly from local people's pockets as a result of those cuts. Of course, NICVA and many others have been able to demonstrate, through a variety of reports, that that amount will rise to around £750 million annually if you take into account the fact that benefits will be frozen over the next number of years and will not rise with the cost of living and so on. <BR /> <BR />We in Sinn Féin argue that we have a choice.”
“<BR /> <BR />I also want to make it very clear that having personally and politically argued for all the measures referred to by Minister McCausland and other DUP spokespeople with many of my party colleagues — including Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, who did so directly with David Cameron — I, of course, welcome those measures, but they are not anywhere near close enough to what is required. Those measures are essentially administrative, and, important as they are, they do not address the issues of concern to many people out there, particularly women in our community, who believe that the purse-to-wallet policy is a very regressive measure.”
“I am not giving way, thank you. Members will have the opportunity to speak. <BR /> <BR />The only response that I have heard thus far to my question is that we have no other choice, that there will be no more concessions from London or that we have secured the best deal of the devolved Administrations, as they are referred to, through Nelson McCausland's little lucky bag of mitigation measures. Most people I know have easily recognised the opportunity that is presented to us, even now, as an Administration, with the promises that were made to Scotland in the days that led up to the referendum vote, but that discussion is for another day.”
“We have been advised that up to £425 million that has been ploughed into that system may be written off. So, I have asked this question: why on earth would we want to impose this policy and these cuts when the system is failing in Britain? Never mind the fact that the absolutely complex nature of the legislation is mind-boggling to some people — despite the fact that we were told that the benefits system was to be simplified — or the evidence from those who highlight the very negative impact of the cuts or that the coalition Government are split on key aspects of the welfare legislation, not least the bedroom tax. Again I put this question: given all that, why on earth would we want to impose those welfare cuts on people here?”
“Let us remind ourselves that the Programme for Government commits us to reduce the levels of poverty and social disadvantage, while we also have legal obligations to reduce child poverty levels. Imposing these cuts flies completely in the face of those requirements, and my colleague Mickey Brady will outline some of the other more direct impacts that the cuts will have on many of the people who we collectively represent. <BR /> <BR />I have asked those who argue for the immediate implementation of welfare cuts why on earth they would want to impose these cuts when the British Government are struggling to impose them throughout Britain given the failure of their IT system.”
“It should be said, of course, that the same mean-spirited and uncaring attitude to the less well-off has been a hallmark of many of the policies in Leinster House, no less so than in Westminster, but I remind those opponents or so-called commentators that Sinn Féin made that opposition a manifesto commitment, North and South, simply because we are an all-Ireland party and precisely because it is the right thing to do. <BR /> <BR />We have been asked, or, more accurately, badgered, to support the Westminster-proposed Welfare Reform Bill, but, put quite simply, this is not reform but a pretext for cuts and, if those cuts are imposed, even more families will be driven into poverty.”
“We share the same concerns highlighted in Britain by all the main Churches, the trade unions, various charities and a number of MPs and NGOs. In this day and age, in a so-called modern and caring society, the need for food banks should be a badge of shame for any Government. The number of people made homeless or driven further into poverty, not to mention despair, should make any party unfit for government, and that is why Sinn Féin will not support the welfare cuts imposed by the Tories and, regrettably, now advocated by Members of this House. <BR /> <BR />Opponents of my party have suggested that we are opposing this cuts agenda here in the Six Counties because of our opposition to the very same agenda in Dublin.”
“I propose the motion to the House and ask Members to reject the amendment tabled by the DUP. At the outset, let me say that our battle on this matter is not with the DUP or, indeed, any other party in this House but with the Tory millionaires in Westminster. I believe that the Sinn Féin motion is quite simple and self-explanatory but fundamental in how the Assembly will define itself. Are we determined to defend our community against this ongoing and punitive austerity drive, and will we stand together united and resolute in our rejection of the cuts proposed by the Tories, who represent not one of our constituents? <BR /> <BR />The motion seeks to highlight the disastrous consequences already being experienced by people in Britain, where these cuts have been imposed and heavily criticised.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I beg to move”
“On a point of order, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I apologise to you and the House for failing to be in the Chamber last week at the beginning of Question Time, when I missed my question.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Does the First Minister agree that any review of the Assembly structures must be rooted firmly in the terms of the Good Friday Agreement?”
“— any additional information that we can get will only enhance our opportunity to draw down the funding that is available to us.”
“Notwithstanding all the work being done by each Department, OFMDFM and the junior Ministers, the MEPs and a range of other stakeholders who are out there, day to day, engaging with Europe, —”
“<BR /> <BR />We have benefited from lessons on how to gain funding for transport and moneys for health, research and innovation, food and all the rest, so we know that we can benefit tremendously from a much more enhanced role from Europe. I wish the officials well in the time ahead, under the leadership of the junior Ministers, not only in realising the 20%, which we believe that we are well on target to secure, but in then setting much more ambitious targets. That means all of us, collectively, putting our shoulder to the wheel. <BR /> <BR />I commend all those, including the three MEPs, who have been working very hard over the years. Of course, it would be remiss of me not to refer again to the funding paper that Martina Anderson produced not that long ago, 'Gateway to EU Funding'.”
“We all agree that very important work is being done. May that work continue, not only to meet the targets that we have set but, in the time ahead, to continue to increase the targets that we want to reach beyond that 20%. Anybody working in their relevant sector over the years will know that there is an absolute wealth of experience in the community and voluntary sector. Many of us here know people who are very adept at drawing down European funds because, often, any sizeable, realistic or meaningful project in the community requires a cocktail of funding. Very often, European funding is an essential part of that. There is also a wealth of experience in the business sector, the agri-sector and a whole range of other sectors.”
“Nevertheless, it is important and welcome that it is a target that is clearly being met. <BR /> <BR />I think that Sammy Wilson referred earlier to the fact that perhaps some obstacles remain when it comes to the engagement of some Departments. That may or may not be the case. I simply say this: in the template for the implementation of Programme for Government commitments, we have a series of measures to make sure that we identify any problems that there may well be, whether from a Department or anybody else's failure to fully engage with, or realise, what is eligible for drawdown. <BR /> <BR />In our engagement over the years with Brussels, all of us have understood that a lot more is yet to be done. I commend the role of the working group, under the guidance and co-chairmanship of the two junior Ministers.”
“Therefore, we are not in a position to get anywhere near the kind of money that has been available there. That is not to say that we must not be more ambitious in the time ahead. I see the lessons that have been learned from this phase of our renewed and enhanced engagement as being developmental in real terms. <BR /> <BR />Members referred to the fact that Manuel Barroso is moving on. We need to ensure that, whatever happens with regard to new appointments in Brussels, our focus remains entirely on working together much more effectively and sharing the wealth of experience that is undoubtedly out there. We need to harness all that to ensure that we maximise the drawdown that we are entitled to secure. As I said, 20% is, in my view and in the view of most Members, fairly modest.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the report and thank the Chair for bringing it to the Assembly this afternoon. I add my voice of thanks to the Committee officials and also to the Department and the junior Ministers for appearing at the Committee and supporting it in its deliberations on this very important matter. <BR /> <BR />The essence of what all contributors have said is that we need to continue to work together on the issue. Obviously, what we are addressing today is the whole question of how we relate to the Programme for Government's commitment 26, which is about increasing the drawdown from 2011 to 2015 by 20%. We have all agreed that that is a modest amount, but, as Jimmy Spratt said in referencing a previous contributor, this is not a sovereign state, which is how the South is classified.”
“— the members were absolutely sure that they could not accept the explanations of the Minister or the SpAd that they had inadvertently misled the Committee. In fact, the Committee very assuredly came down on the view that the Minister deliberately misled the Committee.”
“Further, the evidence from Mr Will Haire, the permanent secretary, referred to the Minister being the head of the Department. He said that, when the Minister wishes something to be done, the Department will facilitate that. <BR /> <BR />It is very important to state that the Committee took a substantive body of evidence. It was delayed in presenting and dealing with that evidence by a long-term project of trying to get relevant material from the Department. We eventually got most of that material. I thank the officials for their diligence in collating, analysing and presenting the evidence to members in a very cogent fashion. As far as the Committee was concerned — five out of the six parties on the Committee —”
“<BR /> <BR />I do not want to deal with the role of the Department, given the time constraints that we have. The Deputy Chair will refer to it in the winding-up speech later. Suffice it to say that the Committee was very concerned about the role of the Department in the duration of phase 1 of the inquiry in relation to the provision of materials and how it described things. The Department's permanent secretary and Mr Michael Sands appeared before the Committee. Michael Sands said that, even though he had given a factual record to the Minister as to who the meeting was with in April, when the Minister requested changes to the drafts:”
“I apologise to all Members, but, as the Member will be aware, quite a lot of evidence was gathered. It is very difficult to try to cram it in, but I urge Members and the general public to read the reports. The reports and the evidence will speak for themselves; I am very satisfied about that. <BR /> <BR />As I said, the evidence provided by staff of Turkington Holdings stated that they had absolutely not referred to themselves as anything other than representing Turkington Holdings. Given the written evidence and hard facts — not impressions or beliefs — that I have outlined and which were provided to the Minister and the SpAd at the time of the 16 April meeting, I hope that Members can see the difficulty the Committee had in accepting the Minister's explanation that it was his genuine belief that he met the GGF.”
“Given the written evidence and hard facts — not impressions or beliefs — that I have outlined and which were provided to the Minister and the SpAd at the time of the 16 April meeting, I hope that Members can see the difficulty the Committee had in accepting —”
“Mr Brimstone replied: "I accept that." <BR /> <BR />Therefore, the Minister's stated genuine belief that he met the GGF was seemingly based on Mr Brimstone’s impression of the meeting, which he admitted was "not rooted in anything". <BR /> <BR />The Minister said that a letter from Trevor Turkington was not considered properly by the Committee. However, Mr Young, who also attended that meeting and gave oral evidence and wrote the letter to the Minister, was clear that it was never suggested that they were representing anyone other than Turkington. Furthermore, when asked during their evidence session whether, at the meeting of 16 April, they held themselves as representing, being there on behalf of or speaking on behalf of the GGF, the managing director of Turkington Holdings replied "Absolutely not".”
“Mr Brimstone also stated that he had told the Minister to expect a letter from the GGF requesting a meeting. However, when it was put to Mr Brimstone that his belief that a letter would be forthcoming from the GGF was:”
“Mr Brimstone stated that it was his recollection that, as a result of the meeting, a letter would be forthcoming:”
“So, the Minister's private office was also issuing invitations, on the Minister’s behalf, for a meeting with Turkington's. Given the written material that he was privy to at the time and the attendees’ evidence regarding how Turkington's introduced and represented themselves during the meeting, it was hard for the Committee to accept the Minister’s evidence that he had a genuine belief at the time of the meeting that he had met representatives of the GGF. <BR /> <BR />The Committee therefore considered from where the Minister’s stated genuine belief that he had met the GGF could have arisen. That matter was addressed by the Minister's SpAd in his evidence to the Committee on 9 January. Mr Brimstone stated that he met Trevor Turkington and Ian Young on 25 January 2012 to discuss possible cost savings to the double-glazing programme.”
“He said that it was also the understanding of his colleague that they were there purely as representatives of Turkington Holdings. <BR /> <BR />Mr McPeake also noted that the invitation to attend came from the Minister's private office and that it was entered into his diary by his PA precisely as she was told on the phone:”
“That is supported by evidence from former Housing Executive chief executive Dr John McPeake, who stated:”
“<BR /> <BR />Mr Brimstone did say that he first saw the letter from Turkington's in July 2013 and was "shocked" that it was not from the GGF, yet that evidently did not prompt him to seek further clarification from officials, even though the Minister had just threatened the BBC with legal action over the matter. <BR /> <BR />The Committee considered whether something was said at the meeting of 16 April that may have convinced the Minister and his SpAd that they were hearing from the GGF rather than Turkington's, but, in oral evidence to the Committee, the Turkington representatives were adamant that, although they referred to being active members of the GGF and to discussing GGF guidelines at the meeting, they never suggested that they were representing the GGF.”
“A briefing paper was also prepared for the meeting for the Minister and his special adviser, and that also clearly stated in bold that the meeting was with Turkington Holdings. It is only mentioned that Turkington's were "active members" of the GGF. Nowhere in any of this material does it say that the meeting is with representatives of the GGF. Importantly, it is evident that DSD officials treated it as a meeting with Turkington's. <BR /> <BR />The Committee was told that neither the Minister nor Mr Brimstone had read the letter from Turkington's requesting a meeting; nor did they read the briefing paper prepared for the meeting; nor, indeed, did Mr Brimstone read the emails that he was cc'd into regarding the meeting. Frankly, the Committee found that evidence hard to accept.”
“One might accept the Minister’s word that he had genuinely laboured under that erroneous belief for a year and a half, but only if one is prepared to set aside all the evidence that the Minister had at his disposal, which clearly stated that the meeting was with Turkington's. <BR /> <BR />I will deal with some of the written evidence. On page 347 of the report, Members will see that the letter requesting a meeting with the Minister clearly came from Turkington Holdings Ltd. The internal DSD emails on pages 348 to 353 refer quite clearly to an invitation to meet Turkington Holdings. Members will note that those emails were cc'd to a wide range of DSD officials and the SpAd.”
“It was only at that point, the Minister claimed, that he realised that he was wrong in his understanding that he had met representatives of the GGF. Consequently, during his evidence on 12 December 2013, the Minister advised the Committee that he had:”
“<BR /> <BR />After all the evidence sessions and in-depth questioning and discussions, it boiled down simply to this: on the one hand, the Minister stated to the Committee that, at the time of the meeting on 16 April 2012, it was his genuine belief that he was meeting representatives of the GGF, and that was why he reported it as such, while, on the other hand, the Committee unearthed a considerable volume of evidence that indicated that the Minister, his special adviser, Mr Brimstone, and senior departmental officials knew that the meeting on 16 April was with Turkington Holdings Ltd. <BR /> <BR />However, according to the Minister, he maintained that genuine belief from April 2012 up until the point that he read the transcript of the oral evidence that was taken from the two Turkington employees on 14 November 2013.”
“<BR /> <BR />I point out that no one on the Committee disputes that it is perfectly reasonable for a Minister to meet organisations in relation to programmes for which he or she is ultimately responsible, whether they are known supporters of that Minister’s party or not. However, it is absolutely the responsibility of the Minister in question to be open, transparent and honest about such meetings. In the face of the evidence, the Committee had difficulty in accepting the Minister’s explanation as to why he stated repeatedly that he had met representatives of the GGF when in fact he had met representatives of Turkington Holdings. The Committee ultimately rejected his explanation.”
“In parallel, my colleague Daithí McKay tabled a question on the 10 May 2012 asking the Minister to detail the meetings that he had had in relation to the double-glazing scheme. Again the Minister replied that he had met representatives of the GGF. <BR /> <BR />The 'Spotlight' programme alleged that the Minister had not met representatives of the GGF, but had, in fact, met representatives of Turkington Holdings Ltd — a company that it said had links to the DUP — and referred to a draft letter addressed to me as Chairperson of the Committee, which it said had originally stated that the Minister had met Turkington Holdings Ltd. The implication was clear: the Minister had met a company known to support the DUP and, as a result of that meeting, had initiated action to change the specification of the double-glazing programme.”
“On the 8 May 2012, in a written response to an Assembly question, the Minister stated his concerns about the value for money of the Housing Executive’s specification to contractors for window installation and noted that a substantial amount of money could be saved in relation to this programme. He also informed the Assembly of his decision to request that the Housing Executive rigorously review the specification. As Chair of the Committee, I wrote to the Minister asking him about this decision and specifically who had advised him of the potential savings to be made. The Minister replied, in a letter of 24 May 2012, that his decision to review the specifications came about as a result of meeting representatives of the Glass and Glazing Federation (GGF), a trades body that represents the industry.”
“<BR /> <BR />There has been no rush to judgement; there has been no political motivation in reaching the conclusions; there has been no "witch-hunt"; just a plain, old-fashioned, objective, rational consideration of evidence. It is my view, and the view of the Committee, that, for five of the six parties represented there, the evidence speaks for itself. It is our view that the weight of the evidence is such that coming to any conclusion other than that the Minister deliberately misled the Committee would have held the process and the Committee up to ridicule. <BR /> <BR />I now turn to the events that ultimately led to the position that the Minister now finds himself in.”
“<BR /> <BR />Over recess, I noted that some members, including the Minister, referred to the inquiry as a "witch-hunt". Such comments are not only unfounded, as they fly in the face of all the evidence, but they are, in my opinion, contemptuous of the Committee's process and these institutions overall. I am confident that any objective, reasonable person would agree that the process that I have just outlined reflects the Committee’s aim to be fair and accommodating to witnesses and that, far from being a "witch-hunt", there has been a painstaking and detailed process of evidence-gathering, prolonged discussion on the evidence, and careful consideration of different views around the Committee table.”
“In accordance with these guidelines, the Committee agreed to forward the draft report to those who were adversely referred to in order to allow them to provide comment to the Committee prior to publication. The Department and the Minister did not provide comment within the time frame that the Committee deemed reasonable to ensure consideration prior to publication. Notwithstanding that, the Committee agreed to publish comments from the Minister and the Department as an addendum to the report. <BR /> <BR />As Chairperson, for the benefit of the DUP members who were opposed to the key conclusions, I offered the opportunity to have a minority report produced. Support in its production was given by the Committee Clerk. A number of members liaised with the Clerk to produce a minority report, which is included in an appendix to the report.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee also encountered problems in getting information from the BBC. We eventually received the information requested, but not before a long engagement with the BBC's litigation department. It is also worth noting that the BBC chose not to appear before the Committee to give evidence. The Committee was very disappointed that, having raised the allegations in a very public way, the BBC chose not to assist the Committee by appearing before it to give evidence. The Committee also reviewed the evidence on four separate occasions before drawing its conclusions, all of which were based on evidence. <BR /> <BR />Because of the seriousness of the allegations, the Committee established guidelines on procedural fairness, underpinned by legal advice, to ensure that witnesses had an opportunity to state their case.”
“The Committee initially had significant problems in getting information from the Department, which contributed to a delay in progress. There was little, if any, proactivity, which resulted in repeated requests by the Committee for information. Indeed, the Committee wrote to the head of the Civil Service on these matters and brought the permanent secretary to the Committee to explain what appeared to be the almost obstructionist approach adopted by the Department in respect of papers and so on. Members should also note that, before papers were provided to the Committee, they were passed to the Minister. That again appeared to many members to be unusual, given that the Minister was the focus of this phase of the inquiry. However, that crucially resulted in further significant delays.”
“For that reason, the Committee was committed to gathering all the relevant evidence to ensure that this was very much an evidence-based inquiry. That resulted in hundreds of pages of documentation, with the large majority of it coming from the Department itself. It included internal briefing papers, emails, letters, diary entries, copies of minutes etc. The Committee also received written evidence from witnesses and took oral evidence on six separate occasions, including taking evidence under oath or affirmation — a serious step, given the potential and legal implications of giving false evidence under either.”
“The process was that the Committee adopted a phased approach and broke it into three separate phases. Phase 1 concerned the allegation that the Committee was misled by the Minister for Social Development over his decision to seek a review of the specification for the supply and fitting of double glazing. The Committee opted to deal with that matter first, as it was viewed by the members at the time as a relatively straightforward allegation that could perhaps be clarified in a short time. That, of course, did not prove to be the case. For Members’ information, the Committee intends to conclude the inquiry by the Christmas recess. <BR /> <BR />Allegations that a Minister has misled a Committee of the House are extremely serious.”