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 6 of 15.
“We think that that is becoming much more prevalent in common parlance and the understanding of people throughout civic society. On that basis, we prefer to keep it that way and continue moving in that direction. Not only is it specifically related to this particular Bill, it is part of an ongoing, changing cultural public narrative around the use of gender definitions when people are addressed in the civic world. On that basis, a Cheann Comhairle, and we seek your guidance on this, we will oppose the amendments, but we have no desire to bring the House to Divisions on this matter. If we can go from what might be described as a "no", to a "low no", to a "no no", we are quite happy to do that. We seek your guidance on that matter.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Chomairle. I thank the Member for tabling the amendments and speaking to them. I will try to be brief on this matter, because there are a significant number of amendments, but they are designed to deal with the one issue, which is the name change. <BR /> <BR />Our view is quite simply that we would prefer the title to remain "ombudsperson". We understand the origin of the word "ombudsman" and the question relating to the gender issue and it being a gender-neutral word. By the same token, we believe that there has been an ongoing cultural change in the last number of years whereby people tend to move away from using the word "man", which most people here obviously accept has a gender definition. On that basis, we would prefer that the name remained "ombudsperson".”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Will the Member assure the House that all requests are considered equally, including events such as Pride?”
“If that is not the case, so be it. But I know one thing: I accept the integrity of Peter Robinson and Martin McGuinness when they both spoke yesterday and said that they were determined that this, indeed, will be a fresh start, and l look forward to seeing that happen.”
“This will not be subject to any one party saying, "Oh, there's my favourite", or, "There's what we want to support." These are the eminent experts in the field who will look at the situation facing them, and they will determine how best to spend the money. I repeat for the record that £585 million will be put at the disposal of that panel to distribute through the system here in the best way possible to support people in need. <BR /> <BR />On that remark, I will conclude. As I have said, I hope that what we have in the overall agreement is a fresh start. People can ridicule a title and call it whatever they want. I just hope that, when we get beyond today, people out there see that at least the Assembly is starting to work again. I would rather they were hearing that with universal unanimity from all the parties.”
“Not one Member who spoke today has said that Eileen Evason should not be given a panel, that money and the role to try to determine how best to use that money to support the most vulnerable. I look forward to Professor Evason's panel report in January so that we know exactly what that means. <BR /> <BR />I will you what else has happened. The First Minister and deputy First Minister yesterday committed to accepting the proposals from that independent panel. So when Members here say, "I want to know what it is. I want to scrutinise it", fair enough; that is grand. But this package of support will not be subject to party political dispute.”
“People out there do see this place as dysfunctional, and I regret that, because, for the first time in my many years as an elected representative, in the last couple of years, I have actually felt that I really do not want to be in this Assembly. I am not interested in working in an Assembly that is not delivering for the people whose vote I am privileged to have. I do not to be party to an institution that will not deliver for the people, or at least try its best. That is what we are here to do, and I think that all the parties need to work together to deliver for the people we represent, even though we may disagree on some aspects of the issues. <BR /> <BR />However, not one Member who spoke today has said that the £585 million should not be put in a pot to give to people.”
“<BR /> <BR />We have been doing our level best to support people out there who need it. That means that it does cost the health service and the education system, but we are prepared to make those choices because everybody in this room wants the same things: we want to maintain no prescription charges, lower tuition fees, no water charges, and the list goes on. I mentioned some of the other aspects earlier. It is not until we get the financial levers that are currently held by Westminster that we can seriously and fundamentally seek to restructure our economy. This is not a sovereign state. People need to remind themselves of that. <BR /> <BR />I hear people talk about a dysfunctional Assembly.”
“We have managed to get a pot of money of almost £600 million to be spread over four years. It is regrettable that we have to do that because that money will come out of our block grant. People have argued that that money would have been better spent on hospitals, schools, the arts or disadvantaged communities. Of course it would, but a lot of other measures in the overall agreement seek to address all those issues. We need to make businesses successful, give our young people, in particular, hope, and to support people, so we are making choices against the austerity programme and the dogmatic and ideologically driven austerity measures coming from the British Government in London. The same measures are coming out of the Oireachtas in Dublin, I have to say.”
“<BR /> <BR />The final part of my remarks concerns the fact that Members have talked about the people in Scotland or Wales or England. There is nobody in Scotland or Wales or England who is getting access to this level of support, and I add that nobody in the Twenty-six Counties is getting it either.”
“One commentator on the BBC said that Sinn Féin has not done enough, yet the person on after said that Sinn Féin has done too much. You can either put too much money into welfare support or you can put too little. It is a judgement call. At the end of the day, we are, broadly speaking, satisfied. Even though we would want 100% support for everybody, that was not doable, and that is the bottom line. What has changed? What has changed is that there is an unfettered Tory Government in Westminster. The bottom line is that, unfortunately for me, the people of Britain returned the Government that they have. That was their democratic choice, but, unfortunately, it impacts very negatively on us. Our job has been to try to do our best to support the people we represent.”
“They all said that they wanted split payments so that people would not have to get payments every month but would instead have the choice. We are talking about lone parents who are trying to go for interviews and so on having latitude to do so because they do not have the childcare that may be available elsewhere. We are talking about a figure of £585 million over four years, and that will be spread across people who currently will lose out as a result of welfare reform or the changes to tax credits. We have all agreed, I believe, that the panel led by the eminent professor, Eileen Evason, will have a very tough job of looking at how to mitigate the situation using the envelope of money that has been agreed. <BR /> <BR />I heard interviews on the radio yesterday, including those with commentators.”
“I do not know whether it supports the package on welfare. It has not actually said that. I can take the SDLP's point about it not wanting an LCM to go through and wanting one day for a debate in the Assembly. In October, Mr Attwood asked for a one-day Consideration Stage, so I am not really sure what the SDLP's position is on the package. Let us remind ourselves that the package that we are talking about today and that is going through as the result of an LCM is under section D of the agreement. It is very precise. I presume that the Minister will answer formally and directly himself a number of the questions raised when he is on his feet later. At the end of the day, what we are supporting here is the series of measures that were agreed earlier on in the year among the parties.”
“At the end of the day, the people will make their choice on those parties in the election in the next number of months. <BR /> <BR />Let us be very honest about this: we all know that the Ulster Unionist Party never had any intention of reaching an agreement. It never intended to have an agreement. In fact, one minute, the leader of the party was in the talks and, the next minute, he was out of the talks. The next minute, he was saying, "We have agreed a pot of money for welfare, but we are not agreeing anything else", or, "We are not putting in a paper because you never gave us any papers back", or, "You did not take any notice of our last paper". That is the stuff of five-year-olds, but, at the end of the day, the rest of us got on with the work. <BR /> <BR />I have to say the same thing about the SDLP.”
“Whether it is on the regional rate or supporting the manufacturing industry, or whether it is the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development trying to help people in rural communities and all of the rest of that, John O'Dowd as Minister of Education or Mervyn Storey as Minister for Social Development, the Executive are trying to make sure that we are supporting disadvantaged communities, because that is what they are there to do. <BR /> <BR />We have a job of work to do, which is to stabilise the political institutions. One way of doing that is to keep the political institutions, and we would not have been able to keep them if we had had no agreement reached in the past number of days. To the parties that were, in my opinion, never intending to reach an agreement, I say this: shame on them.”
“We are endeavouring to do our best to give them as much support as we can so that, despite the worst efforts of the British Government to have a slash-and-burn policy on welfare and to attack public services, the Executive, even though they are not getting the support from other parties that have members on the Executive and the party that has walked out of the Executive, are doing their level best to support people.”
“I could go to any one of our offices' advice workers who will tell you exactly what the problems are, problems that people are facing day in and day out. That is not only people from the nationalist community that we are told that we represent. I am talking about people from the unionist community and the loyalist community who come to our offices to seek our support on welfare and issues of that nature, and who want to get help, whether they are on welfare, whether they are on sickness benefit or whether they are trying to get a job. We help those people as well, and I am privileged to say that we have the opportunity to do that and do so. <BR /> <BR />We will not for one second abdicate our responsibility to those people.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I will do that; I just wanted to provide a little bit of context and a reality check to some Members who have contributed to the debate today. <BR /> <BR />I just want to make it very clear that Sinn Féin and the DUP — more accurately, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister — have reached a deal between their respective parties, and the two Governments have signed off the agreement. Today is not about us abdicating our responsibility on welfare or anything else, far from it. This is about us taking our responsibility seriously. We are not coming here with empty rhetoric, telling everyone what the problems are. I know what the problems are; I could write the script for what the problems are.”
“We said, "Well then, so be it, there is no agreement". That is why we are here today. The legacy issues are not included in the agreement, and I deeply regret that. Let me remind some Members that I was a victim of the conflict, so I know what it is like personally and directly —”
“There is not one victim or survivor of our conflict, particularly one who has lost a loved one, who is going to thank anybody around the table who would support legislation at Westminster that will allow the British Government to continue the cover-ups that they have been involved in for decades. I am not making any apology on behalf of Sinn Féin for not agreeing to the legacy aspects of the talks. <BR /> <BR />We agreed all the structures, and it was very good that there was agreement across all that. However, you cannot then say that we are going to set up these institutions, but, by the way, we are going to underpin it with our own get-out clause, which was what the British Government wanted to do. They told us last week that, if we did not agree to that, there would be no agreement.”
“— I am not taking any interventions, sorry — shamefully exploited those killings for narrow, party political interest. They did that to their shame, but, lo and behold, implacable opponents around the table and in this Chamber were able to get together to work with the two Governments and other parties to try to resolve those issues. <BR /> <BR />Some people may think that they are not all approved, and people talk about the legacy issues. An SDLP contributor said earlier that there was no deal on the legacy issues. There was a lot of agreement, as he knows, on the legacy issues, but that part of the agreement fell down on one point, which was that the British Government said that they would not compromise what they called their national security.”
“We have come out of a situation in this city, so let us bring ourselves back to reality. We can talk all we want about welfare and a range of other issues, but we were confronted in the last few months with the murder of Jock Davison in the Markets, followed by the murder of Kevin McGuigan in the Short Strand. There are some politicians in this Chamber who, shamefully —”
“Party leaders — I am talking about Mike Nesbitt — went down to the talks saying that they had a route map to get us out of the mess that we are in. Where is the route map? I have not seen it yet. We had parties saying that they had a prosperity plan. When I asked Alasdair McDonnell, the previous leader of the SDLP, for his prosperity plan, he told me that Fearghal McKinney was just putting the finishing touches to it. We still have not seen or heard about this great prosperity plan. I am still waiting anxiously to get it, because if somebody can show us how we bring greater prosperity, then I'm your man. I might even consider voting for you. Mind you, it will be a tough call to make. <BR /> <BR />Let me be very clear and very honest about this. I want all the parties around the table to contribute to the solution.”
“For me, whatever came out of the range of issues in the negotiations and the agreement, all the parties here, bar one or two, were involved in the negotiations, that is fair enough, and I accept that. I can understand that a party that was not part of the negotiations can criticise the outcome. I might not agree with them, but they may have the integrity to say that they had a particular view. However, I cannot accept that parties that were involved in the same negotiations that we were involved in can come to the Chamber and talk for as long as they want to but do not have a single alternative to put on the table. That is what is missing in this debate; there is no reality check. <BR /> <BR />We heard from parties that said that they had a route map.”
“They are holding this place over a barrel.”
“I am quite glad that they are not my Government, but I am stuck with them.”
“Did they get any promise from them that they would not slash and burn welfare? Did they get any promise from them that they would not attack public services continually? <BR /> <BR />Conor Murphy and I, with other members of our party, met a whole lot of other Members round the Chamber in the bilateral talks. We asked parties directly how they got on when they were talking to the British Government, "Did you get any money out of them?". No. "Did you get any commitment from them that they would stop cutting welfare?". No. Do not come into the Chamber and decry the rest of us for trying to do the best we can. I do not stand here and say that British Government policies on welfare, or many others for that matter, are good policies. Of course, they are not. They are not my Government and I do not want them to be my Government.”
“In fact, I am glad to hear that nobody has suggested it even today. Let us just scotch that and deal with it. People say, "Well, what has changed since when we made those commitments?". By the way, it was not just Sinn Féin that made those commitments; other parties made them, too. What has changed is that the people of Britain elected an unfettered Tory Government. That is what has changed. That is the same Government that, no later than Friday in the negotiations, said that if there were no agreement on this or the legacy issues, there would be no agreement whatsoever. I would like anybody who wants to spend the day decrying this initiative or the agreement to spend a little bit of time telling us how they got on in their own negotiations with the British Government. Did they get any additional money out of them?”
“The choices are made because the British Government that we are dealing with ideologically and dogmatically intend to slash and burn welfare, public services and obviously, even more recently, tax credits, even though they promised their own people during the recent election campaign that they would not touch tax credits. You know what? They did. Whatever little bit of a setback they got in their House of Lords, nobody in this Chamber knows what they will come back with. What we do know is that they will come back with further cuts to our grant and to the people who depend on welfare or tax credits. They will come back with those measures. <BR /> <BR />Therefore, we have to recognise that we cannot say — no one in the Chamber can say — that we will defend all those people to the last penny that they will lose.”
“<BR /> <BR />Earlier, someone said that we do not know what the pot of money is, where it will come from or whether it is enough. That was the deputy leader of a party that has come to the House to say that it does not support this initiative, but he does not seem to know where the money is coming from — £585 million of mitigations — for people on benefit and, at the moment, for the people receiving welfare or tax credits whom we are trying to help. The deputy leader of a political party can come to the Chamber and say, "We do not know where the money is coming from", and ask, "Is it enough?". <BR /> <BR />Let me explain: the money is coming from the block grant; it is coming from every person we represent.”
“Personally speaking, if I had my way, there would not be an official opposition because I think that everybody should work together and shoulder the responsibility around the Executive table to help this society move from the period that we have come from: decades of conflict, discrimination, direct rule and misgovernment. I believe that the problems that we all face deserve — and we should, rightly, expect — that the parties that have a mandate work together, not pretend that they are in opposition and certainly not when they have not put forward a single proposition as an alternative to what has been agreed. I have heard a lot this morning and afternoon, but I have not heard a single proposition from any party or Member here. Not one person has come up with an alternative.”
“Nobody, in my view, would realistically and sensibly argue that having no political institutions here and having none of the political representatives exercising their mandates and trying to do their best for the people whom we represent would be a sensible outcome. I hope that it never comes to that. I make it very clear that whilst the parties here have to deal with issues, whether welfare, health, education, employment or any of the other matters that are pressing down on people, no one would suggest that the parties here do not have a responsibility to be seen to working together in the Executive. <BR /> <BR />In the last few days, in this agreement, we have approved an official opposition.”
“<BR /> <BR />The agreement that we reached, which has brought us to supporting an LCM today, is part of a wider agreement. Let us not forget that we cannot deal with the issue in isolation. Only if it were possible to deal with the issue in isolation would we all be in a better position than we actually are. I hope, and expect and believe fervently, that, when the people outside whom we represent come to terms with what is in the agreement and what is across the range of issues, we will see that they are, generally speaking — I mean this in the round — better off as a result of an agreement than not having an agreement. <BR /> <BR />No one has dealt with the elephant in the room: if we did not have an agreement, and if we did not have an agreement now, we would have no political institutions.”
“We have had the Haass talks, and, even before them, we had the all-party group, the Executive meetings and failure to reach agreement across a range of issues, to the point at which we all know — every Member knows — that the standing of the Assembly and these institutions has been pretty low in the minds of many of the people whom we collectively represent. I think that we all acknowledge that that is a very unfortunate position to be in. We owe it to the people whom we represent to do the best we can on their behalf. We know that people out there are struggling to get a good education, a proper health service, a job, good opportunities and support when they are in need of support, whether that is through welfare or any governmental intervention. That is the context in which we have to see this.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. We are well into the afternoon and are, quite rightly, having a lengthy debate, if not necessarily an entirely useful one. I will put some context on the issue. I will not refer to any other elements of the agreement announced yesterday, but I make the point that Martin McGuinness and Peter Robinson publicly announced the agreement that had been reached, which is a fairly comprehensive agreement across a wide range of issues, notwithstanding the very serious difficulties that we have all faced in the last while. Let us remind ourselves that — Mr Humphrey made this point — this debate and discussion have been going on for almost three years. <BR /> <BR />Other issues have also been going on in the last two to three years.”
“I will ask the Member two questions, with the indulgence of the Speaker. You mentioned a few minutes ago in your commentary around the benefit cap that your party proposed the benefit cap in the talks that have just concluded. You might need to establish the factual accuracy of that. Secondly, your party colleagues were telling everybody here that you would be kingmakers after the general election at Westminster. Do you not accept in this House that you are only a bit player?”
“For today’s purposes, the Committee supports the principles of the Bill and asks the House to support its passing Second Stage. <BR /> <BR />I once again thank Committee officials, stakeholders and the Department, all of whom worked hard to ensure that, whatever the recent difficulties faced by the Minister in dealing with the Bill in the normal procedural manner, the Committee took the pragmatic view, supported by its officials and the Department, of making sure that it could discharge its responsibility to consider the issues in the Bill as quickly as it could and to achieve a successful legislative outcome within a certain time frame.”
“The Committee notes that the Bill provides only that any person "may" disclose information. This is another issue that we will continue to explore with the Department. <BR /> <BR />The third area of concern was the lack of any provision related to information sharing that would give legal indemnity to persons sharing the information in respect of defamation. However, recent communication from the Department addresses this issue in detail, and I believe that we will resolve it in the near future. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, the Department has provided clarification on the concerns of the Committee and stakeholders. Some matters will require further consideration, but we hope to conclude our deliberations in the coming weeks.”
“Members expressed concern, for example, that tenants removed from social housing for reasons of antisocial behaviour could simply move to the private sector, and a new landlord would not have been made aware of their history of antisocial behaviour. However, members have since been briefed on the difficulties of including private landlords in the provision, including the demands that are placed on those landlords by the Data Protection Act. I will not go into detail on that matter, but the issue will be considered further by the Committee, and the House will be informed of its position in due course. <BR /> <BR />A second concern was raised in Committee about disclosing information on antisocial behaviour in that there is no compulsion on social landlords to disclose such information.”
“Although that is not the essential purpose of the Bill, it would nevertheless be a very helpful by-product. <BR /> <BR />The Committee also noted the benefits of disclosing information on antisocial behaviour. That should help social landlords to deal better with antisocial behaviour. It is not simply envisaged as a means of excluding what might be described as problem tenants but could also help social landlords to provide support to tenants to help them to change their unacceptable behaviour or, indeed, to help them if they needed particular support. <BR /> <BR />The Committee noted that sharing of information relates only to social landlords. That caused concern among some members who saw it as an opportunity missed, perhaps, by the Department.”
“The Committee noted that the Bill seeks to address three areas: the sharing of information on empty properties; the disclosure of information on antisocial behaviour; and the registration as a statutory charge of certain loans. I note that it is a significantly different Bill than that contained in the original proposals that were presented to the Committee in February and June 2014, and I highlight the fact that the Committee was advised that that was due to drafting complexities and associated time constraints. <BR /> <BR />The Committee noted the benefits of information sharing, particularly in the case of the sharing of information with DFP about empty properties. We are all only too aware of the housing crisis that we face, and the provision could assist DSD in bringing vacant dwellings back into use.”
“<BR /> <BR />Given what I have said, I am sure that today’s debate on the principles of the Bill, while required by procedure, may seem to Committee members as having been overtaken by their discussions. It is important, however, for Members to focus on the principles of the Bill today, therefore I do not intend to go into detail on the issues that were raised by stakeholders and Committee members, even if you were minded to allow that, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. <BR /> <BR />For the record, the Committee received a pre-introductory briefing from the Department on 25 June 2015. Officials provided an overview of the Bill, and members were able to raise initial queries and provide comments on various aspects.”
“Nevertheless, being prudent and pragmatic, we issued a call for evidence. That was to ensure that, when normal service resumed, there would be sufficient time for the Bill to proceed through the entire legislative process. I thank Committee members for agreeing to that approach. I also thank stakeholders for responding to our call for evidence, despite the uncertainty about whether we would have a Committee Stage. <BR /> <BR />As a result of that approach, we were able to conclude our stakeholder evidence sessions on 15 October. Since then, we have been briefed by the Department on stakeholder and Committee concerns, and the Committee will, of course, continue with its discussions on the Bill at its meeting this Thursday. The Committee aims to conclude those discussions and report to the Assembly before the Christmas recess.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for bringing the Housing (Amendment) Bill to Second Stage. <BR /> <BR />The Committee took what I can only describe as a very pragmatic view of what it could do with the Bill to ensure that progress could be made during the period between introduction and Second Stage, given the delay in tabling Second Stage. During the period of uncertainty, therefore, the Committee was prudent and prioritised the Department’s legislative programme in its work programme. With the assistance of the Department, which we were grateful for, and, in particular, our stakeholders, we embarked on a call for evidence, even though, as I indicated, the Bill had not been formally transferred to the Committee for consideration.”
“On balance — the Chairperson of the OFMDFM Committee has already made this point — where reports will generally be withheld from those directly involved, that has led to better outcomes for the complainants. On balance, that is why we took that decision. <BR /> <BR />We are opposed to amendment Nos 58 and 59 because they relate to clause 41, and we have already made it clear that we are opposed to clause 41.”
“I would just like to make a couple of points. We will oppose a number of amendments in this group. We will oppose amendment Nos 22 and 23, moved by Mr Jim Allister. As has already been suggested, these relate to whether this remit would be exclusively at the disposal of students or whether it would bring in others. It is important to reiterate the point that this is about the delivery of public services at the discretion of the recipient of those services where it is believed that there has been a failure. Staff and others have other recourse to redress if they feel the need for it. On that basis, we are opposed to amendment Nos 22 and 23. <BR /> <BR />We are also opposed to amendment No 54 on the basis that the ombudsman, the ombudsperson or the NIPSO will have all the latitude necessary to make judgement calls.”
“Some of the decisions that the Committee has reached, mostly by way of consensus, have been on the basis of the balance of the evidence that was presented to us. I think that the Chairperson highlighted a number of those very well in his remarks, particularly when opening this group.”
“We believe that the new provisions in their totality will actually enhance the protections of members of the public who may well fall foul of any deficits that there may well be in the public sector and in public-service delivery. Again, I put on record that, as far as we are concerned, we all know that the vast majority of public servants and those who are charged with responsibility to dispense public services are absolutely 100% professional, have personal and professional integrity and deliver a perfect or very good service, but of course there are always cracks in the various systems. The Bill is designed to try to ensure that people who fall foul of any of those deficits have the maximum protection at their disposal. <BR /> <BR />We have considered all the matters long and hard.”
“We are opposed to those matters and have made that very clear consistently. I note that Lord Morrow said that he had never heard those issues or concerns. That may well have been the case at the Ad Hoc Committee; I do not know as I am not a member of that Committee. Certainly, at the principal Committee, the Committee for OFMDFM, concerns were routinely and consistently raised at every occasion when the matter arose in deliberations. I think that the Committee Chairperson would acknowledge that. Obviously, we did not get support for that and, again, that is a matter of record, but we are very much in support of the intent of the Bill itself. <BR /> <BR />As has been made very clear, the Bill is about merging the office of the independent Commissioner for Complaints with the ombudsman's office, as it is currently, into the new NIPSO.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I rise to make a number of points on this group. First, I thank all the officials, who have been very supportive of the Committee in our fairly lengthy and protracted deliberations on the Bill, including the Bill Office officials, who have been helpful and supportive to all members. <BR /> <BR />Earlier, my colleague Bronwyn McGahan made it clear that we are very much in support of the Bill, albeit that we are opposed to a small number of its provisions, particularly the relationship that the Bill wants there to be in the appointment of the ombudsperson by "Her Majesty", as referred to in the Bill; issues around disclosure in relation to the Official Secrets Act; public interest matters; and, equally, the proposed involvement of the Secretary of State.”