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 9 of 15.
“When, during oral evidence, the former managing director of Red Sky was asked to remind the Committee of how the meeting came about, he said:”
“The Committee also noted that the fact-finding report records Mr Brimstone as saying that he made the now well-reported telephone call to Councillor Palmer in order to brief her fully on Minister McCausland's position on the matter, which was reflective of the party's overall position. He is also recorded as stating that he asked Councillor Palmer to consider and reflect the party position to the board so that it understood and was aware of the Minister's position. Mr Brimstone also stated that he was initially unaware who Red Sky but that”
“While he maintained that it was to ensure that similar problems were not present in the contractors to whom the contracts would be transferred, the Committee could not accept that it was reasonable for a Minister simply to ignore the independent, well-documented issues with Red Sky and allow it to carry on its contracts while such an investigation took place. That would be irresponsible at best. <BR /> <BR />The Committee noted evidence from Mr McPeake, the director of housing and regeneration and acting deputy chief executive at the time, who said of a meeting on 28 April 2011 with DUP MLAs:”
“In relation to his request to the chair of the Housing Executive board that the termination date of the Red Sky contract should be extended from July to allow an open procurement competition, the actions of the Minister are considered by the Committee as evidence that he became involved with contractual matters that, as advised by his officials, were outwith his responsibility and rested solely with the Housing Executive and the administrator, BDO. <BR /> <BR />The Committee considered the possible motivation behind Mr McCausland's actions to seek to have the termination date extended.”
“Whether it was his intention or not, the Minister's decision to seek to have the termination date of the Red Sky contract extended impacted on the existing contractual framework to transfer contracts to adjacent contractors. That was a process that the Housing Executive had already initiated, and it potentially provided a commercial advantage to a newly reconstituted Newco in a forthcoming procurement exercise.”
“The Committee concluded that, although the Minister was notionally free to meet whomever he chose, his attendance at the meeting was imprudent, particularly as Red Sky was in administration and the administrator, BDO, was not present. <BR /> <BR />The Committee agreed that the Minister's position, as indicated in the note of the meeting, that he would like to have the administrator in place until the end of August to allow all issues relating to the handover of contracts to be considered and that, during that time, the proposed new company might also be able to progress matters indicated that he sought to have the termination date extended, which would give time for a new company, referred to in evidence as Newco, to be established and to be in a position to bid for the maintenance contracts in a new procurement exercise.”
“<BR /> <BR />The central issue for the Committee to consider was the action taken by the former Minister following his decision to meet East Belfast DUP MLAs and representatives of Red Sky in June 2011. In particular, the Committee considered whether Mr McCausland's subsequent request that the Housing Executive board consider extending the termination notice constituted impropriety or irregularity or whether the actions of the Minister were appropriate. The Committee noted that Department officials advised him against attending the meeting on the basis that it was an ongoing contractual matter between the Housing Executive and Red Sky.”
“DUP members of the Committee opposed the findings of the report and produced an alternative report that was not agreed by the Committee: I want to put that on record. However, the Committee agreed to include that report in the appendices to the Committee report that you have in front of you today. <BR /> <BR />I hope that all objective, reasonable people will agree that the process that I have just outlined reflects the Committee's aim to be fair and accommodating to witnesses and members alike; that there has, throughout the inquiry, been a painstaking and detailed process of evidence-gathering and careful consideration of that evidence and the different views around the Committee table; and that the Committee has had to address significant procedural and legal issues to reach this point.”
“On careful consideration, the Committee did not accept the points raised by him in his response. Mr McCausland did not provide any response to the Committee.”
“Some members were deeply annoyed by the BBC's refusal to give oral evidence. However, the Committee acknowledges that the organisation provided a significant amount of written material to the inquiry. While it regretted that the BBC would not provide oral evidence, the Committee also recognised the wider implications for the organisation had it done so. <BR /> <BR />The seriousness of the allegations led the Committee to establish guidelines on procedural fairness for its inquiry, underpinned by legal advice, to ensure witnesses had opportunity to state their case. In accordance with the guidelines, the Committee forwarded the draft report to those who were adversely referred to in it, to allow them to provide comment prior to publication. Comments received from Mr Brimstone are included in the report appendices.”
“<BR /> <BR />Indeed, I personally argued with and to the Committee that we should not pursue the current Minister through the courts for failing to produce the full, unredacted fact-finding report but should instead draw our own conclusions, based on what was obviously a vast amount of evidence that we had received, including the redacted fact-finding report. The Committee also made clear that it would have had no hesitation in pursuing the matter had the former Minister remained in place. Ultimately, the Committee took the road of drawing its own conclusions, but that does not detract from the continuing lack of transparency around the actions of a serving senior — temporary — civil servant. In the public interest, that needs to be resolved. <BR /> <BR />The Committee also encountered some difficulty in its engagement with the BBC.”
“That was not resolved entirely to the Committee's satisfaction, as the Minister provided only a redacted version. However, I place on record that I have some sympathy with the current Minister, who inherited this situation from Mr McCausland and his special adviser. I also recognise that this was a difficult process for the present Minister, given the challenge that the inquiry presented to his party colleagues and to his trying to maintain good working relations with the Committee on legislative and policy issues. I am glad to say that he has diligently continued to do so.”
“<BR /> <BR />While it was notified in September 2013 that the exercise had been completed, the Committee was only informed in September 2014 of Mr McCausland's decision not to initiate any further action. That was the case despite correspondence with the Department over that period seeking clarification on the outcome of the exercise. A key recommendation of the fact-finding report was that a formal disciplinary investigation should be initiated into the special adviser's actions. Despite that, the former Minister decided that no further action was required. That, in our view, is clearly holding accountability in contempt. <BR /> <BR />Members will also be aware that the Committee engaged with the current Minister over a period of several weeks to seek the release of the report.”
“<BR /> <BR />The amount of evidence provided to the Committee by the Department, the Housing Executive and the BBC was vast. The Committee received written evidence and held 17 oral evidence sessions. During the collation of phase 3 evidence, the Committee became aware that the Department had not supplied at least some papers on behalf of the Housing Executive, and the Committee found that most unsatisfactory. However, of particular concern to members was what we described as stonewalling by the Department and the former Minister in the independent fact-finding exercise into the actions of Mr McCausland's special adviser, Stephen Brimstone.”
“At times, it was uncomfortable hearing the evidence, and harder still when the evidence received from witnesses was of a contradictory nature. In such instances, the Committee agreed to take further evidence from those witnesses under oath or by affirmation. <BR /> <BR />On a number of occasions, the Department sought to have departmental witnesses accompanied by a legal adviser during evidence sessions. Following legal and procedural advice, the Committee ultimately rejected such requests. Given that the requests were made by the Department, not by named individuals and that the reasons for requiring legal advice were never made clear, some members viewed the departmental interventions as little more than delaying tactics, designed to hamper rather than assist the Committee.”
“The Committee also showed considerable flexibility in accommodating witnesses, who at times were unable to attend as originally scheduled and that, of course, also contributed to a delay in the inquiry. <BR /> <BR />Allegations of political interference in the Housing Executive, potential breaches of the ministerial code of conduct and potential misleading of the Assembly are very serious indeed. For that reason, the Committee was committed to gathering all relevant evidence to ensure that this was very much an evidence-based inquiry. Contrary to some statements that have been made, this was never a case of finding against the Minister and then going in search of evidence to support that position. This phase of the inquiry was a difficult process for all concerned.”
“<BR /> <BR />I suppose a positive outcome of the inquiry is that a number of lessons have been learned from the experience that the Committee believes the Assembly and the Executive should consider to ensure that proper procedures and accountability mechanisms are in place, should this type of inquiry ever be necessary again. <BR /> <BR />This was a new type of inquiry, so the current procedures for obtaining information from the Department proved problematic from day one. Procedures require that all departmental evidence relating to a Committee inquiry must be authorised for release by the relevant Minister. That may suffice under normal circumstances but, in the Committee's view, presents a clear conflict of interest in the case of an inquiry into the actions of a Minister.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee published its report on phase 2 on 13 March 2015, and, overall, the Committee agreed that good progress had been made on the range of issues relating to procurement, governance and contractual management in the Housing Executive and the Department but that significant work remains to be done. The Committee will, obviously, monitor that in the time ahead. <BR /> <BR />Today the Committee is, obviously, asking the House to note its report on phase 3 of the inquiry, which deals with decision-making relating to the award, modification and cancellation of Housing Executive maintenance contracts to establish any impropriety or irregularity and, in particular, whether Ministers' actions were appropriate.”
“That presented difficulties in how the Committee conducted the inquiry, and we frequently required legal advice and discussion by the Committee on specific matters of procedure. That took time and resulted in progress being delayed. Indeed, some comment has been made about the length of time the inquiry has taken, but I point out that it has essentially been three inquiries in one, because there were three distinct elements to the terms of reference. <BR /> <BR />Members will know that the Committee has already produced two inquiry reports. Phase 1 of the inquiry has already been debated by the Assembly. The key conclusion of that report was that Mr McCausland had, in fact, deliberately misled the Committee for Social Development.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I commend the motion to the House. Members will be aware that the inquiry was initiated following a 'Spotlight' investigation in July 2013 that made a number of serious allegations in relation to the actions of the former Minister for Social Development Mr Nelson McCausland. Members will also recall that those allegations were so serious that the day after the broadcast the former Minister appeared before the Committee. At that meeting, the Committee agreed to hold an inquiry into the allegations, the terms of reference for which were subsequently agreed in October 2013. <BR /> <BR />Before outlining the findings of the report, I will say a few words about the inquiry process. This was the first time that a Statutory Committee of the Assembly carried out an inquiry of this nature.”
“How representative is the advisory panel of the community, voluntary and transgender sectors?”
“<BR /> <BR />I conclude by thanking all the organisations that assisted the Committee in its scrutiny of the Bill, either by providing a written submission and/or an oral briefing. I also thank members of the Committee, who dedicated a significant amount of time to considering the legislation, which is part of a very complex area of public work. The Committee is happy to support the Bill through its Final Stage.”
“<BR /> <BR />I think that we can all appreciate that everybody hopes for a healthy retirement and a good and fair pension to ensure the security that they need and should have to enjoy that time of life. However, we must recognise that there will inevitably be winners and losers as a result of this legislation. Young people will perhaps most noticeably lose out as the retirement age increases and they find that they also have to save more towards their retirement. The Minister addressed that in his remarks. <BR /> <BR />The Committee welcomes the introduction of a single-tier pension. It provides simplicity in an otherwise very complex area. It also provides greater certainty in respect of what an individual can expect upon retirement to live on.”
“Hopefully, that approach can continue, and I have no doubt that it will. <BR /> <BR />In addition, the Minister brought forward a number of consequential and technical amendments. As I pointed out to the House during Consideration Stage, those amendments were provided to the Committee by the Department after the Committee had formally completed its scrutiny of and reported on the Bill. However, the Committee considered the Department's notification of the amendments at its meeting on 12 March and noted that they were, in fact, of a consequential and technical nature. At that time, no members of the Committee raised any concerns about the proposed amendments. I note that no further amendments were presented during Further Consideration Stage.”
“I repeat that the Committee therefore welcomes that the Department has accepted the Committee's recommendation to investigate how the verification of such relationships could be established with a view to including unmarried cohabiting partners through the bereavement support payment. <BR /> <BR />Indeed, it is fair to say that the Committee was given good support from the Department's Bill team throughout consideration, and that is reflected in the Minister's positive response to the Committee's recommendations. On behalf of the Committee, I convey my thanks to the Department's Bill team for that support. It is encouraging to see the positive impact that scrutiny by a Committee, in conjunction with stakeholder engagement, can have on legislation when a Department is prepared to work on a collaborative basis with the Committee.”
“In particular, the Committee welcomes that the Department has accepted the Committee's recommendation to monitor the impact on widowed parents with dependent children by replacing widowed parent's allowance and other bereavement benefits with the bereavement support payment. The Committee noted that the bereavement support payment will not extend to surviving unmarried cohabiting partners, which is currently also the case in relation to the payment of widowed parent's allowance. The Committee noted that the main reason given for that is the difficulty in officially verifying the bona fides of such relationships. However, the Committee shared the concerns of Cruse and the Childhood Bereavement Network that that might ultimately impact on the children from such a relationship.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee was eager to pursue these and other issues with the Department and subsequently made a number of recommendations to the Minister. As the Minister outlined, after consideration, he has accepted in full all those recommendations. The Committee, of course, very much welcomed his decision.”
“I particularly highlight the assistance provided to the Committee from the Commissioner for Older People and from Cruse Bereavement Care, in conjunction with Childhood Bereavement Network. Both organisations brought to the attention of the Committee the potential difficulties people may face in respect of changes being made by the Bill, for example, the potential impact on widowed parents with dependent children as a result of the widowed parent's allowance being replaced with a single bereavement payment, and, furthermore, how those with multiple part-time jobs or in zero-hours contracts may struggle to make the lower earnings limit that is required to trigger National Insurance contributions. They may, therefore, not reach the minimum qualifying period of 10 years’ contributions to ensure a state pension.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for bringing the Final Stage of the Pensions Bill to the House and outlining in considerable detail the Bill's purpose, content and so on, while even addressing some of the concerns that have been raised by Members of the House and a range of stakeholders. <BR /> <BR />In response to its call for evidence, the Committee received three substantive submissions. Additionally, the Committee received shorter written submissions from four stakeholders, commenting on particular aspects of the Bill. The Committee took oral evidence from four organisations. I thank those organisations that took time to engage with the Committee on the Bill.”
“I will leave that to one side. Will the Minister confirm that he will continue to meet our party and, indeed, any other party that is interested in resolving the outstanding matters on the Welfare Reform Bill?”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I ask the Minister to note that it is very interesting that Mr Nesbitt is saying that his party did not agree with the Stormont House Agreement, yet he sat around the table on the day it was agreed and said that it represented significant advances and that he would recommend it to his party executive and give it a fair wind.”
“The Minister outlined the reasons for the uplift and the limitations on the Committee and the Assembly to do anything about it at this point. <BR /> <BR />On behalf of the Social Development Committee, I recommend that the order be affirmed by the Assembly.”
“The implementation of the uprating proposals is expected to increase the Department's annually managed expenditure by approximately £94 million. The uprating order also includes provision to increase the weekly rate of ordinary and additional statutory paternity pay and statutory adoption pay, the responsibility for which lies with the Department for Employment and Learning. DSD informed the Committee that it consulted with that Department and that DEL is content with the proposals. <BR /> <BR />The Minister already referred to this, but the only issue of contention for the Committee, which I feel it is important to put on the record again, is that the increase in the uprating is linked to CPI. Others have contested that that is less advantageous. Nevertheless, that is the position that we are in.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for bringing forward the statutory rule and for outlining the purpose behind it. <BR /> <BR />The Committee for Social Development first considered the proposal on 5 February 2014 and was content for the order to be made. We formally considered it on 12 March, and the Committee was again content to recommend that the Assembly affirm the statutory rule. As the Minister indicated, the order is already in operation, and today we are simply being asked to affirm it. <BR /> <BR />The order, as we just heard from the Minister, is one of a series of statutory rules relating to the annual uprating for rates of social security benefits, pensions and allowances.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Can the Minister advise the House whether there are any protections or measures in place to ensure that local businesses can avail themselves of all subcontracting opportunities?”
“Go back to the Stormont House talks. If you speak to your party leader — I do not know if you speak to him or not — you will know that the five-party discussions with the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, resulted in an additional £550 million being brought in for education over the next number of years. That was a direct result of our party leading on that.”
“Will the Member give way so that I can answer?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I had hoped that this afternoon would not descend into a silly point-scoring exercise. Most other Members have not done that and have still been able to make their points. Can the Member identify a single pound that any of his colleagues in Westminster have brought here as a result of their participation at Westminster? I cannot identify a shilling, never mind a pound.”
“<BR /> <BR />As I said earlier, we effectively have to manage the block grant with our hands tied behind our back, because we cannot manage the economy without the powers to do so. We call on those in wider civic society to unite behind the parties here that have been doing their level best to tackle the austerity programme that has been imposed upon us and the swingeing cuts that have come as a result of those punitive policies.”
“<BR /> <BR />The motion calls on the Executive to continue to defend the crucial public services of health and education, particularly as, clearly, they are essential elements of any caring society. As I said, I fully understand the concerns in many of our sectors. I am certain that our Executive can always do some things better, but the motion makes an important appeal to civic society in general, and to employers, trade unions and the community and voluntary sector specifically, to unite in lobbying the British Government against these austerity policies and the massive cuts to the block grant, because that is where the full responsibility for the cuts to the budgets lies.”
“<BR /> <BR />Despite all of the controversy around welfare cuts, the Executive, to their credit, have agreed to not simply impose the benefit cuts, as demanded by the British Government. I acknowledge that the Executive and Departments have had to face very hard choices, and most have made great efforts to minimise the impact of reduced spending, although it is fair to say that not all decisions have been universally welcomed or even supported. I also want to put on the record the experience that I have had with the Minister who I have most direct engagement with, the Minister for Social Development. He personally and his Department have done their best to protect neighbourhood renewal areas and projects, in particular, from the massive cuts being imposed across the board.”
“<BR /> <BR />I commend our Executive for working very hard, despite those problems, to mitigate many of them. Indeed, the Programme for Government commits us to build the economy and tackle disadvantage. The Executive and Departments have introduced many measures. No water charges have been imposed; there is free travel for senior citizens; there are no prescription charges; there are regional and other targeted rates relief initiatives; and there is substantial funding support for education to target areas of greater need etc. There is a range of other measures, which I do not need to rehearse but which I fully believe show the attempts that each Department has made to address some of the difficulties that many in society have to address in dealing with the austerity programmes and cuts to budgets.”
“<BR /> <BR />I believe that it is important to place on record, particularly for those outside of here who choose to ignore the financial realities that the Executive have to deal with, that the British Government set the block grant. We have no fiscal powers or levers at our disposal to allow us to stimulate and build our local economy. Effectively, we are having to manage the block grant as opposed to managing the economy. Equally, we have a range of very negative indicators, which are additional burdens that our Executive have to take account of. They include having the highest cost of living; the highest levels of child poverty; some of the most deprived wards; higher levels of unemployment; and, of course, the fact that we are a post-conflict society.”
“We know that all of that is down to an austerity programme and a Tory ideological agenda of assault on spending on public services and cutting benefits to those most in need. That, of course, drives down wages and makes more profit for big businesses, the friends of the Tories. <BR /> <BR />The motion asks all parties in the Assembly to restate their opposition to the austerity policies at the root of all this and to call on any incoming British Government to immediately pursue a policy of economic stimulus. For Sinn Féin's part, we will continue to oppose austerity as an economic policy, which, by all evidence, is counterproductive to building an economy, certainly any notion of a fair economy.”
“The Tories, as we all know, have said that they will take a further £30 billion from public spending, which will include, perhaps, £12 billion from welfare. Who knows precisely what a Labour-led Government may seek to do? However, that is outside our gift at this time. <BR /> <BR />Unfortunately, we already know the devastating impact that this is having on public services and what the impact on the most vulnerable in our society would be if we were to simply pass on the benefit cuts to those most in need. Those are benefit cuts that the five parties to the Stormont House Agreement have agreed should not be imposed on the most vulnerable, but which will come, obviously, at a cost to the block grant. All around us, Departments have been forced to cut budgets because of the cuts to our block grant.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I rise on behalf of Sinn Féin to propose the motion. It is a simple enough motion and I do not think that it should provide any issues for any Member or party in the House. I think most of the parties will already subscribe to the general intention behind the motion and most, if not all, of its sentiments. Nevertheless, I will make a few points on the motion. <BR /> <BR />The motion, as has been outlined, asks the Assembly to note the reduction in the block grant of £1·5 billion over the last recent number of years. It further notes the declared intentions of the British Tories to make even more swingeing cuts within the next mandate if re-elected in May.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Does the Minister agree that the M/LK site should be open for wider public use?”
“I thank the Member for taking us back somewhat to political policies. However, does he not agree that that is a wee bit rich, given that he was a representative for the DUP, interestingly enough, as a European member, but that he no longer represents that party? People can change their political viewpoint.”
“I reiterate that the Social Development Committee has already agreed with the Department to have another look at the European priorities.”
“Clearly, the Social Development Committee has indicated its intention to play a much more focused role in scrutinising European priorities and policies and to look at what we can do to work with the Department and those in the community and voluntary sector in particular to see if we can maximise the drawdown on a strategic basis to, first, underpin the community and voluntary sector, which is a very important element of our civic society's structures, and, secondly, and I suppose more importantly, to make sure that we are able to draw down those resources to tackle poverty by including social inclusion at the heart of all the work that we are involved in. <BR /> <BR />Again, I thank the Chairperson for tabling the report this morning. Hopefully, it will provide a lot of food for thought for all of us.”