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 8 of 15.
“Does the Minister know whether that is standard practice in the industry and, if so, should it not be made clear in advice that the legislation does not ensure that early drawdown of a pension is actually free? I ask the Minister to share some of his views on these matters and provide some insight into the role of the Financial Conduct Authority in regulating the new provisions. <BR /> <BR />The Committee has taken several briefings on the Bill, as the Minister has confirmed. We are content that it is a positive step forward towards greater stability in relation to sustainable pension outcomes and should ultimately benefit the consumer. We are also realistic and recognise that there will undoubtedly be hiccups in its practical application across the industry.”
“<BR /> <BR />Secondly, there have been recent reports of pension schemes not allowing people to draw down funds until they receive financial advice because, it would appear, they do not want to be accused of not properly advising their members of the implications of drawing down funds. This is, in many ways, understandable, given the fear that some disreputable organisations or individuals may wish to prey on people and give them fancy deals that may not, in reality, be to their benefit. Reports also suggest that some people have had to pay for such advice; even figures of £1,000 have been quoted in some instances. On a related matter, there have also been reports that people are being charged for drawing down their pension early.”
“I point out on behalf of the Committee that it takes the view that guidance and advice are, of course, two different things. <BR /> <BR />We have excellent generalist advice services here, and Pension Wise has been established to provide guidance on pensions. However, I understand that the Pension Wise service does not recommend any pension products per se, and there have been some concerns that the advice on pensions is given, by and large, by generalists, not pension experts as such. Can the Minister, therefore, give some information on the type of advice this service provides, assurance on the quality of guidance provided and information on how this service actually operates?”
“However, there was some concern that the introduction of collective benefits could potentially shift greater risk on to younger scheme members — so-called intergenerational risk. <BR /> <BR />One of the central planks of the Bill is to ensure greater stability of outcomes by making pension incomes less dependent on market conditions. To ensure that that is the case and that younger members of pension schemes are not put at risk, there must be strong governance of those schemes. The Minister's views on that aspect would be welcome. <BR /> <BR />Furthermore, it is absolutely essential that, in relation to drawing down funds from a pension prior to reaching state pension age, there must be sound financial guidance and advice. Given the complex nature of this area of work, that issue gave the Committee considerable cause for discussion.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee received an oral briefing on 8 January and agreed to support a legislative consent motion, which related to the extension of pension flexibilities outlined in the Westminster Pension Schemes Bill to this jurisdiction. The Committee was also content with the equality impact assessment (EQIA) on which it was briefed on 30 April. At that briefing, the Committee noted that officials believe that the Bill:”
“Obviously, he has already covered quite a number of them, but I want to put on the record that the Committee has considered those matters in some detail. The Bill defines private pensions on the basis of the promise they offer for members about their retirement benefits during the accumulation phase. It enables the provision of collective benefits in a way that pools risks across membership, thereby providing a greater amount of stability in pensions outcomes, and it also gives force to measures so that people aged 55 and over will have more flexibility about how they access their defined contribution pension savings. Generally speaking, those are all positive measures that the Committee welcomes.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. The Minister referred to his length of service here. Some of us might say that he has perhaps put years on the rest of us, but I will not go that far. It has been a pleasure to work with you. <BR /> <BR />Pension reform is ongoing in both the public and private sectors, and I have no doubt at all that we will continue to see significant changes in pension provision over the coming years. The Pension Schemes Bill is yet another step in that reform process. <BR /> <BR />On behalf of the Social Development Committee, I would like to draw the Minister's attention to specific issues related to the Bill that I hope he will be able to further elaborate on in his concluding remarks.”
“The Committee is, therefore, content that it has considered the proposals in the context of the Westminster Bill and the proposed Assembly Bill. Following an oral briefing on 8 January 2015, the Committee agreed to support a legislative consent motion to extend to this jurisdiction the new pensions flexibilities outlined in the Westminster Pension Schemes Bill. The Committee notes that the remainder of the Bill is, essentially, of a technical nature. <BR /> <BR />The Committee for Social Development supports the Minister's request for the Pension Schemes Bill to be brought forward by way of accelerated passage.”
“The Committee therefore appreciates the importance of the Bill being enacted here as soon as possible so that the industry has time to develop new pension products with the certainty that they will be compatible with law here. <BR /> <BR />The Committee notes that the new regime will require regulation to be in place before April 2016 to ensure that adequate safeguards and protections are in place. To that end, the Committee further notes that retaining the same pension regulatory framework here as operates in GB — the Pensions Regulator, the Pensions Ombudsman Service and the Pension Protection Fund — will continue to facilitate compliance and enforcement. <BR /> <BR />The Department provided the Committee with several thorough and detailed briefings, as the Minister outlined, on pension schemes legislation.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. As the Minister has said, he attended a meeting of the Committee for Social Development on 4 June to discuss the potential accelerated passage of the Pension Schemes Bill. The Committee noted then that, although pensions are a devolved matter, in effect there is a single pension system and regulatory regime across the UK, and many private pension schemes operating here are UK-wide schemes. <BR /> <BR />The Committee is aware that the Westminster Government intend that the new pension scheme definitions and provision to allow schemes to offer collective benefits will come fully into effect from April 2016.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. It is none of my business whether the British people decide to remain in the EU, but, clearly, any decision that they might take would impact on this region and, perhaps, many others. Will the Minister confirm that the majority of Administrations at the BIC expressed concerns in relation to the British intention regarding its exit from the EU?”
“Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for that response. Can the Minister advise the House of the cost implications of the retention of the staff commission until 2017 and who will bear that cost?”
“<BR /> <BR />It is time for people who want to equivocate on where the responsibility lies to get off the fence. The Government in London are quite clearly signalling that much more savage cuts will be imposed on us. Those will be to welfare and very important public services. We are saying to people who are against that that we should work together to challenge the British Government that are trying to impose those cuts and, if need be, stand up and name and shame the parties who are willing to acquiesce to that agenda.”
“The parties here who want to challenge the austerity measures that are coming from London and want to work with civic society out there, whether it is the unions, the community and voluntary sector, the Churches or all those organisations that very rightly put on the table the very negative impacts of the cuts if they continue to be implemented, should work together and challenge directly where the responsibility lies. Despite the differences around the Chamber, the responsibility for the cuts does not lie with the parties in the Chamber or the Executive. It lies in London. I call on people here and in civic society to stand up to London, stand together and look after the best interests of the people we are elected to represent.”
“In the same way in which we are talking to people in the Twenty-six Counties over the head of parties, politicians and vested interest groups, I say that people out there in civic society have a voice and should use it very strongly. The people's voice was made very clear to us in the election campaign, and I presume that other parties heard the same. <BR /> <BR />We have a job to defend the people we represent, particularly those who are most vulnerable.”
“OK, I will not give way; it is not the case that I cannot. I do that respectfully. I did not want to go there. This is legislation, and everyone can take as long as they need to talk in the Chamber today. However, the clock is ticking, and the Speaker has warned that he will interrupt. <BR /> <BR />I just want to finish my remarks on this point: parties here have a major responsibility on their shoulders. We in Sinn Féin have no hesitation in standing our ground against austerity. People inside and outside this Chamber have a responsibility to stand up against the cuts to the block grant and welfare, as well as the cuts that are coming down, yet again, from London from 8 July.”
“I cannot give way, sorry. The difficulty —”
“The offer from Nicola Sturgeon to the devolved Administrations to sit down and work together on this issue is a very worthy one, and it would be foolish for anyone not to take up that offer. <BR /> <BR />I say to those in wider civic society that it is time for those who have identified the problems to work together to find solutions. Solutions do not lie just in the Chamber. Yes, we have the responsibility to pass legislation, or not, as the case may be. Clearly, today, we will not pass it. That is a decision that the Minister has foisted on the Chamber. Nevertheless, I call on wider civic society to work with all the parties here. This problem will not go away. The Bill will not pass today. We are then into unknown territory, and it is up to the parties to work out where we go. I would far rather that the parties —”
“I want to praise them again for coming to the Committee for Social Development during the evidence-gathering sessions on the Bill. There were people from the trade unions, Churches, community and voluntary sector and rights-based NGOs, including the Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission. They spoke very well and cogently on the serious and negative impact that the welfare cuts being imposed by London would have if implemented here on the people whom we all represent. We need to focus our minds on those people. We represent people here. We do not represent people in Birmingham or anywhere else. We need to learn from and be in solidarity with all those people.”
“Let me make it very clear that the Department's officials gave us figures for those categories: a family with a child on disability premium would lose up to £1,750; ESA time limiting would cost people £5,100; adults with a severe disability premium would lose £4,500; adults with a disability premium would lose almost £1,000; and the benefit cap would impact on some families to the tune of £2,300 or perhaps more. Those are the figures given to us. Of course, we know that the history of figures is that they could change by this time tomorrow, but it will be for another person to deal with that argument. <BR /> <BR />I want to conclude on a very simple point. In the last while, we have heard a lot of very strong and solid voices from wider civic society, which has stood together.”
“No, thank you. Both of the problems that we face originate in Westminster. They are the savage cuts to the block grant, which are well rehearsed — £1·5 billion over recent years — and the equally savage cuts to welfare, which the British Government want us to impose on people. Crucially, we have more of the same coming to us in July. Let us repeat that we are talking about treating with respect the most vulnerable. They include the long-term sick, large families with children who will be affected by the benefit cap, children with disabilities and adults with severe disabilities.”
“Therefore, our party will not determine its policies based on what officials tell us. We have to listen, learn from what they are saying and work our way round the obstacles. We need to get round those obstacles politically, not simply acquiesce to them. That is the point that I wanted to make about the Department's officials. <BR /> <BR />Crucially for us, even though progress was made, it was not enough, and we have made that very clear. That is why, on 9 March, we said clearly that we would not continue to support the Bill as it goes through the House: it and the commitments and schemes did not go far enough. Essentially, we have two problems that we have to deal with. Both of those problems —”
“There was progress. Parties reached an agreement in the Stormont House talks. We all agreed on that. We may disagree about what precisely we agreed — that is another day's argument — but, nevertheless, we made progress. As I have said, subsequent to that, we had further discussions about implementing the Stormont House Agreement. Ultimately, it came back — the Minister made the point earlier — and we were told by officials via the DUP that the deal that we wanted, which was to support current and future claimants, was not legally, operationally or financially deliverable. We dispute that. What we are saying is that the parties should decide the policy that we pursue, and we then have to get that enacted. Officials work very hard — I want to endorse the Minister's praise of the officials — but they do not set policy.”
“They want us to knuckle down, roll our sleeves up and get to work to tackle those very serious problems that people out there face. <BR /> <BR />The Minister, in his opening remarks, praised his officials, and rightly so. I want to place on record my gratitude and thanks to all the officials in his Department, including the Social Security Agency, who regularly come to the Social Development Committee and take a lot of time to explain things to and work with the Committee, and likewise throughout the whole Welfare Bill issue. However, by the same token, the Department officials do not set policy. That is the job for the parties around this Chamber. The officials do not set the policy.”
“I think it is very unfortunate that parties seek to waste their time and energy today in the debate taking sideswipes at Sinn Féin, or, indeed, any other party, when the real focus of our dispute has to be with the British Government. I will say this — I do not want to return to it later today, and I hope that nobody else has to — had the SDLP worked in good faith during the implementation period for the Stormont House Agreement, maybe, just perhaps, they might have been able to deliver on some of the points that they have been making. <BR /> <BR />That is by the by, however, because the last point that I want to make in regard to that is that the people who we represent want us to work together. They do not want us sniping at one another. They do not want parties bickering, complaining or criticising each other.”
“As I said earlier, we are very proud and privileged to have received the very significant mandate that we continue to receive, and we will exercise that mandate very judiciously. <BR /> <BR />I will also make the point that continuing attacks on Sinn Féin during this debate or, indeed, others is a bit futile because it will not resolve anything. In case you have not learned anything over the years, criticising Sinn Féin is not going to make us shift one way or another. We will do what we have to do, what we need to do and what we think is in the best interests of the people who we collectively represent. Criticising Sinn Féin is really a waste of your time. <BR /> <BR />I did not want to go there, but I want to make one point, particularly in relation to the SDLP and Dolores Kelly's remarks earlier.”
“We are not dictated to by any one part of the country or any individual. Sinn Féin has a very strong, committed, collective leadership that has representation from throughout the whole country. Let me assure anyone who has any doubts or any delusions in their minds: the decisions that we come to have been thought out, considered and acted upon on a national and collective basis. I think that is what it should be. You will not find any individual in our party faltering against another because our party is united. We are an anti-austerity party. We are a party that wants to work with all of the other parties, building the economies, North and South, and treating people fairly. That is what we will continue to do.”
“Those are the most vulnerable in our society. When all the parties talk about defending the most vulnerable, that is the type of people that we are actually talking about. That money has not been lost or squandered or gone down the drain, as someone mentioned in the last number of days. That money remains in the pockets of those who are most vulnerable and who desperately need it. <BR /> <BR />I will also make a point for those who like to delude themselves about the machinations of Sinn Féin. Sinn Féin is a national party, and we do not have to be dictated to by one part of the country or another. When people refer to where Sinn Féin in the North takes its orders from, let me say this: Martin McGuinness, for example, is a member of our national executive, our ard-chomhairle, as are a number of other Members on these Benches.”
“No, I am not giving way. I thank the Member. <BR /> <BR />I just want to make the point that we do listen, and we did listen. Not only that; when we make a promise, we will stand by that promise. <BR /> <BR />I want to make a couple of points before we go on. People are making remarks willy-nilly. They probably do not understand what they are saying themselves. The first thing is the whole question of fines. People say that we are being fined, and I have heard Members saying that that is money down the drain. Well, actually, I remind people that the money that is being taken off us by the British Government currently remains in the pockets of those welfare recipients. If it were not for Sinn Féin, the SDLP and others who have been resisting those cuts, those people would have had that money removed from their pockets already.”
“<BR /> <BR />I will make the point again that the Tory Government, who are the body responsible for the position that we find ourselves in, have no mandate here whatsoever, whereas the parties around the table here do, and we have a responsibility to discharge that mandate to the best of our ability for the people we represent. Nobody in this room, the last time that I checked, represents any electorate outside these Six Counties.”
“No, I will not give way. Thanks, Minister. <BR /> <BR />We are proud of that. What is very clear is that the fundamental principles we stood for were endorsed by that high number of people. They are the commitments that we made during the election and they are the commitments that we are going to hold to dearly as we proceed. What will happen in the weeks and months ahead, I do not know, but I do know this, and Martin McGuinness made the point very clearly earlier: Sinn Féin is not remotely interested in these institutions collapsing, but, equally, these institutions are only worthwhile if they are delivering for the people that we collectively represent, and I mean collectively as in all of the parties here.”
“I assure Members, and anyone else for that matter, that we do listen, and we heard loudly and clearly what people were saying. They are telling us that confidence in these institutions is low, and that they are worried about their future, their welfare and cuts to services. It is regrettable that some of them lay the blame at the door of these institutions rather than where it actually belongs, which is with the British Government; but is a discussion for another day. <BR /> <BR />The point I would make is that our party came out of the election with 176,000 votes. We are very pleased and privileged to have secured that very significant mandate. We have that mandate across the island of Ireland, in all the political institutions that the people have a franchise to elect into, and we are very proud and privileged to have that.”
“I am speaking for Sinn Féin, which stands for a number of key principles in its involvement with these institutions, including protections for the most vulnerable, a workable Budget that will enable us to deliver on the Programme for Government across all commitments, and the securing of additional powers to allow the Executive and the institutions to grow the economy and create employment. <BR /> <BR />I have heard it said over the last number of days that Sinn Féin is sleepwalking into this debate and does not listen to people. I remind people that we do listen. We are, in fact, just out of an election, and those of us who were on the campaign trail spoke collectively to several tens of thousands of people in their homes, on their doorsteps and at social gatherings and public meetings.”
“The Minister partly addressed this in his first response, but can he outline, perhaps in a little more detail, how he has sought to alleviate difficulties, particularly with neighbourhood renewal area-based projects?”
“— of welfare claimants. It is not going into some black hole in London.”
“<BR /> <BR />I have been speaking to Mervyn Storey since he took up office, and I want to place it on record that there is one Minister — I do not want to comment on all the others, because I have not directly engaged with them as I have with this Minister — who has, in my view, endeavoured to take a broader view of the impact of the cuts and did his best to make sure that they were minimised. I have no doubt that he has not been able to satisfy many organisations and that we will do battle with him in the time ahead. <BR /> <BR />The Assembly has to address the core problem, which is cuts, cuts and more cuts from London. The welfare part of that is an insignificant, small amount when set against the rest of the cuts to the block grant. Therefore, any penny spent thus far by the Executive to support welfare recipients is in the pocket —”
“No. Sorry. Seeking a cocktail of funding takes an awful lot of their time and energy away from the delivery of services. I therefore hope that the Executive are able to come up with a fundamentally changed environment for those organisations, because the community and voluntary sector faces very significant challenges, as a result of budget cuts but also the transfer of powers to local government. There is a lot of uncertainty and instability in the sector.”
“<BR /> <BR />I look forward to the report from the junior Ministers and the Executive's consideration of it. I hope that the Executive come up with firm recommendations on how to go forward with funding for the community and voluntary sector. The sector has to be able to move away from constantly chasing a cocktail of funding, which often makes the organisations unstable, as the staff and members who deliver the services have to devote a lot of their time and energy to seeking funding.”
“Obviously, all MLAs from all parties have been working to defend organisations, often in their own constituency but not always just on that selfish constituency interest basis, rather on a wider, regional basis and beyond. Flowing from that, there were discussions in the Executive. The Executive, to their credit, have appointed the two junior Ministers to hold discussions with NICVA and examine what the cumulative effect of the cuts across all Departments will be. The starting point has to be that having a cocktail of funding from different Departments creates a cumulative impact for the better. Clearly, if local organisations can draw money from one Department or another, they can often do a lot more, thus getting a bigger bang for their buck in local communities.”
“Ms Lo made a point in defence of her Ministers. That is fair enough, but, if she wants to bring that note into the debate, I will have to say that one of her Ministers, Mr Farry, took a unilateral and arbitrary decision on the funding of teacher training colleges. It was a disgraceful and a purely political and ideological decision, and I told him that in a meeting I had with him. <BR /> <BR />I do not want to stand here and namecheck every organisation in my constituency and nor do I want to identify individual Ministers, because I think that there is a range of problems. However, just for the record, our party's ministerial team, led by Martin McGuinness, met NICVA recently to hear its concerns, which we share.”
“It is important that, generally speaking, we keep the motion and the debate as positive and constructive as possible, because what we are trying to do is to support the community organisations that are trying their level best, sometimes through very challenging circumstances, to provide essential services in a range of communities that are very often, but not always, disadvantaged.”
“We do not necessarily agree with everything in the motion, but we certainly agree with the substance and the general intentions of it. I do not think that it goes far enough because, first of all, it does not address the problem. I think that, if we are to solve any of these issues, we have to address the core problem, and I think that the motion falls short of that. As I said, we support the motion, because it does give us an opportunity to raise this on behalf of those in the community and voluntary sector and the communities that they work for, represent and, very often, work in.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. It is a bit unfortunate that, following on from the rest of the very positive contributions, we have now had two Members who have introduced discordant notes into the debate. I would have thought that this was an opportunity for all of us to put our colours to the mast in supporting the community and voluntary sector in its quest to have some certainty and stability around future funding. Obviously, in some cases, there are funding deficits in the very near future, which have resulted in the closure of a number of very important and key projects in our community. <BR /> <BR />In the first instance, I will say, as my colleague Bronwyn McGahan said, that we support the motion.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. In keeping with other Members' sentiments, I wish the Minister well in her new role. Can the Minister outline which public services could be met through digital delivery?”
“The Committee concluded that, had the Housing Executive board acceded to Mr McCausland’s request, it would have effectively reinstated the contract to an organisation that had lost the trust and confidence of the Housing Executive and facilitated the interests of a private organisation —”
“The Committee is of the opinion that the existing Civil Service guidelines and mechanisms for challenging Ministers in relation to their becoming involved in operational or contractual matters are not sufficiently robust and need to be reviewed urgently. <BR /> <BR />On the key issue under consideration, the Committee has concluded that the Minister acted inappropriately in seeking to have the Red Sky termination notice extended. On the basis of the evidence, the Committee has also been driven to conclude that the actions of the Minister to seek to have the Red Sky contract termination notice extended were politically motivated.”
“As per the Committee's terms of reference for the inquiry, had such a mechanism been in place, the Committee would have had no hesitation in referring the matter for consideration to the appropriate authorities, given the serious nature of the conclusions. The Committee considers it entirely inappropriate that the decision on whether to take forward a formal disciplinary investigation of the actions of a special adviser rests with the appointing Minister and considers that this procedure needs to be urgently reviewed. <BR /> <BR />The Committee also calls on the current Minister to publish the fact-finding report in full and, in the interests of accountability and transparency, to review the decision not to initiate the recommended formal disciplinary investigation of the actions of the special adviser.”
“I do not want to give way because I will not have enough time, Dolores. I am sorry about that. <BR /> <BR />A prerequisite for holding public office is to accept that one must be accountable for one’s actions in that role. To underpin that fundamental requirement, there must be appropriate mechanisms in place to ensure that holders of public office can be held accountable. While there is currently a mechanism to investigate allegations in relation to the conduct of MLAs, no such equivalent mechanism is available for investigating alleged misconduct by Ministers. The Committee believes that procedures for establishing a mechanism for investigation and consideration of the findings of any subsequent report on allegations of inappropriate conduct made against Ministers should be taken forward as a matter of urgency.”
“While Mr Brimstone refuted the evidence that Councillor Palmer provided, he did not provide any further material to support his position on the basis that it related to "internal party matters".”
“The Committee heard extensive and conflicting evidence about the phone call that was made by the Minister's special adviser to Councillor Palmer about her participation at the special Housing Executive board meeting. The Committee noted Mr Brimstone's proclaimed inability to recollect certain details surrounding that phone call and his refusal to answer related questions. Importantly, in contrast to Mr Brimstone's evidence, the Committee found Councillor Palmer's evidence on the matter to be consistent, convincing and compelling. In particular and perhaps crucially, the Committee considered that Councillor Palmer had also provided supporting evidence in the form of five redacted drafts of an apology that indicated that the only issue discussed was the termination of the Red Sky contracts.”