Deirdre Hargey
South Belfast · Sinn Féin · Northern Ireland
“His double standards, including his condemnation of and opposition to equality and rights for our LGBTQ+ citizens, have caused real harm to others. The revelations about his double life expose the staggering hypocrisy of the DUP's moral facade. We need to know whether failing to act sooner left more vulnerable people at risk.”
“One week ago today, Jeffrey Donaldson was found guilty of 18 child sexual offences, including rape. That conviction was made possible only by the strength and resilience of the two victims who came forward and reported the abuse. Donaldson was an abuser. He abused children, but he also abused his position in politics and faith.”
“They now say that they knew about his behaviour, but, crucially, they did nothing to expose his inappropriate hypocrisy and double life. The 'Spotlight' programme and other reports have shown that senior members of the DUP — its most senior figures, including the then leader, Edwin Poots — were aware of serious issues and allegations abou…”
“It is therefore not credible to suggest that the intelligence agencies were blind to his compromised double standards and double life. <BR /> <BR />Those questions demand answers from the DUP leadership. They demand answers in the House from the deputy First Minister, who was closely associated with Donaldson.”
“It is clear that there is a huge disconnect between Whitehall and the reality that is being felt by people on the ground. A British Treasury policy that is managing decay, real-terms cuts and disastrous policy decisions such as Brexit or the funding of wars over public services comes on top of existing disparities between how public servi…”
“The answer is not the short-term fixes or cash injections that we have had in the past, which have allowed for the repeated Treasury script of record settlements and inability of the Executive to manage their finances — scripts that are often parroted in the Chamber.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,594 lines we hold for Deirdre Hargey, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 16 of 52.
“I have nothing further to add. I commend the House for removing the end date at Consideration Stage. I again commend the amendments to the House.”
“It will remove any unnecessary duplication of provisions in the Welfare Reform Order and will provide for the Department for Communities to monitor and report on the ongoing operation of the welfare mitigation schemes under articles 137 and 137A. The report will therefore cover all existing welfare mitigation schemes, and it is to be laid in the Assembly before 31 March 2025. That is the position that was previously agreed by the House. <BR /> <BR />The final amendment is to the long title. The new title will reflect the fact that the end date for the bedroom tax mitigation will be removed, rather than changed. <BR /> <BR />I recommend my amendments to the House.”
“I think that it is well known that I do not want to see an end date in the legislation. I firmly believe that we need to protect people from the bedroom tax, and I commend the House for agreeing that we should not introduce a new cliff edge for people who depend on these payments. <BR /> <BR />The Bill will also provide assurance to the Housing Executive and housing associations. I believe that we have a collective responsibility to deliver this meaningful change before the end of the mandate. We know that the social housing stock is not available across the North to allow tenants to avoid being penalised by the bedroom tax. That is one of the reasons why there has been consistent cross-party support in the Chamber for not applying the bedroom tax in the North. <BR /> <BR />The amendment to clause 3 is purely technical in nature.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 1 will ensure that the relevant date of 2 January 2017 is properly defined for the purposes of mitigation payments for people claiming housing benefit or universal credit. It will also avoid duplication where the mitigation period is currently referred to. The proposed new clause 1 will therefore amend article 137A of the Welfare Reform (NI) Order 2015 by removing the end date for mitigation payments in respect of the bedroom tax. This means that my Department will have the authority to make statutory mitigation payments to people affected by the bedroom tax at any time from 2 January 2017. That is the policy that was agreed by the House at Consideration Stage.”
“During Consideration Stage, three amendments were made to the Bill with cross-party support. The amendment made to clause 1 removed the end date of 31 March 2025 for the social sector size criteria — the bedroom tax — mitigation scheme. Two consequential amendments were made to clause 3, providing for a review of welfare mitigations to be completed by 31 March 2025. Further to the amendments made by the Assembly, and after consultation with the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC), I have agreed that some technical amendments should be tabled to the Bill. Those amendments include a new clause 1, which will avoid the need to make several separate small changes. The amendments do not alter the policy agreed by the Assembly at Consideration Stage, but rather are designed to tidy up the drafting of the Bill.”
“Today, we offer that love and shelter to his loving family and, of course, his family in the DUP. May he rest in peace.”
“Indeed, I found that commonality with him on many occasions. Today, in the midst of a ripple of pain and suffering, we find our commonality as people. It reminded me of this Irish proverb, translated into English, that sits in the halls of Belfast City Hall:”
“Politics can be tough. We are all human. Just like in society, we have our conflicts and disagreements that we often debate, and that is what the public sees most. However, there are other depths to a person that are not always seen, and we have heard that about Christopher in the last 24 hours. There was the time when he left City Hall with a bottle of wine shoved inside his coat pocket. He was hiding it so that Laura's grandmother — the late May Campbell, who was also a DUP councillor — could not see that he was sneaking it out. I joked that I was going to blow his cover, and he just laughed. <BR /> <BR />Christopher liked to talk about things that he was passionate about: his family, his unionism and, of course, his faith. However, he also liked to see a commonality in engaging and talking to others.”
“I often kept him going about his class consciousness and his love for Margaret Thatcher, which I saw as a contradiction. In true Christopher style, he defended that position to the core.”
“Like me, he often spoke about the community that he came from with pride and he spoke with pride about being working class and coming from people who worked hard and supported each other when times got tough. <BR /> <BR />When he became an MLA, he was determined and conscious of not turning his back on those very communities, establishing his constituency office in the heart of Sandy Row. I worked with him on campaigns to secure investment in communities and on housing and jobs, which were issues that impacted on the communities in which we lived and worked.”
“By then, he was already a well-seasoned councillor who enjoyed the work, especially the cut and thrust of debating in committees and in the chamber. Christopher was theatrical in his approach. I often thought that he was destined for Westminster, with "on a point of order" being his favourite phrase, as that allowed him more time to speak and to challenge across the City Hall chamber. <BR /> <BR />He was a passionate unionist and was determined in defending his position on the street and in any of the political chambers in which he sat. Although our politics differed, we shared similarities, growing up in working-class communities in South Belfast. He came from Annadale and I from just across the Lagan in the Market area.”
“<BR /> <BR />Even though he was just 39, many in Sinn Féin have known Christopher for a long time, from the days of debating at university and here in the political Chambers, we worked with him across a variety of issues. I knew Christopher for over a decade. I met him in Belfast City Council when I joined as a councillor in December 2010. Instantly, I thought that he was older than me due to his mannerisms and his attire of his pinstripe suit, initially thinking that it was the instructed uniform for all DUP councillors at that time.”
“Where do we begin on a day like today? Sadness has fallen upon the Chamber. First, I want to focus on Christopher's wife, Laura, their four children and, of course, his mummy and the wider Stalford family. No words can describe the shock, anguish and pain that they must be feeling with the loss of their husband, daddy and son. Christopher always spoke of his family with great love and admiration and, indeed, we have been hearing that over the last 24 hours. My and Sinn Féin's sincerest condolences are with them at this moment; a moment that they probably thought that they would never experience at this time of their life.”
“That is not through intent, as I said. I have to bring the sequencing of the Bill on the basis of the 1985 Order, so maybe you would like to take up with the direct rule Minister from 1985 why they placed the sequencing of the legislation in that order. Of course, the priority is to protect those people, but I have to take the legislation in the order that it is based, and that is from 1985.”
“The community and those campaigners expect us to get something through in this mandate to give those additional protections, and then, in a new mandate, we can focus on phase 2 of the legislation.”
“I know from talking to our staff team in the Department today that we are already having those discussions and working with individuals and organisations that support people who have been impacted by problem gambling and thinking of what the next stages will be. <BR /> <BR />I was five years old when the 1985 Order was created, and I am coming 42 in April. In that time, I am the only Minister who has made any changes to the legislation. I am not saying that to score points, but I did it in a shortened mandate of less than two and a half years and during a global pandemic. The Bill is not everything, but I have given a firm commitment. I know that the Department is geared up to look at the next stage of the legislation, but, as was mentioned, it is important that we get something through.”
“I have been clear since I came into post two years ago that I wanted to see changes. When the pandemic hit and our focus turned to the emergency response, I recognised that we needed a completely new Order; the 1985 Order is completely out of date. People recognise, however, that, within a restricted mandate of not even two and a half years, there is not enough time to completely rewrite an Order. I was left with that circumstance and this question: do I move nothing, or do I try to get some additional protections through and continue to build on what the second part of the legislation will begin to look like?”
“In that context and when I introduced the Bill to the Assembly last September, I made it clear that I wanted to deal with credit cards through the code of practice proposed in clause 15. Members will be aware that my Department is consulting on the draft codes, and they include a provision to prohibit operators from accepting credit cards directly or indirectly as a form of payment for gambling. I worried about the possible effect of amendment No 6 — I know that it will not now be moved — on slot machines and their use in the form of cash or tokens. Concerns and queries were raised by the proposers of the amendment, and I want to continue to work with them to see whether we can strengthen the legislation at Further Consideration Stage. <BR /> <BR />A couple of Members asked about the limits of the Bill.”
“Again, I am happy to work with the proposers to find, at Further Consideration Stage, a way to progress the amendment. <BR /> <BR />I know that amendment No 6 will not be moved. There has been discussion and consideration of the issue, and I completely understand the thrust and reasoning behind the amendment. I assumed that it was crafted in a roundabout way to ban the use of credit cards. As stated earlier, I agree with the intent of the amendment, which is that credit cards should never be accepted by operators as a means of paying for gambling. As the Minister with responsibility for setting the regulatory framework for the industry, I believe that the use of credit cards in gambling should be prohibited.”
“I am willing to work with the proposers, moving towards Further Consideration Stage, to fix any technical issues to reflect the thrust of the amendment. <BR /> <BR />As with amendment No 4, I had misgivings about amendment No 5. I would like to be sure that, if we proceed with amendment No 5, it will achieve its intention, which is to make it easier for the courts and the licensing and enforcement authorities to take due account of clause 15's proposed code of practice in the way that all of us would want. At the same time, I want to make sure that we do not lose whatever strength already lies in the code. I want to avoid a situation where the Assembly, in doing its best, inadvertently encroaches on the territory of the licensing authorities and courts.”
“Arrangements in themselves do not owe a duty of care; the duty of care will be owed by the facility provider, as stated at the beginning of clause 15 — the holder of the relevant licence, certificate or permit — but the duty should be absolute not expected. Therefore, it is for the Department to clarify for the industry and licensing authorities, through the code of practice, what those absolutes should be. Also, the amendment does not make it clear precisely who would expect the duty of care to be exercised: "expected" by whom or of whom? Again, the arrangement cannot "expect". I recognise that that is technical and perhaps I am picking at the word, but the technical is important in getting the legislation right. That said, it is not right or in the public interest for me to oppose the amendment out of hand.”
“If that amendment had been passed — obviously, it will not be passed now — there was a concern that it would have fallen short of what may have been needed. The proposer said that he wants to continue to work with the Department to look at what can be done, and I have given a commitment to do that in the time ahead. <BR /> <BR />I acknowledge that amendment No 4 is proposed in the best interests of people who gamble and may be vulnerable to gambling harm. I completely understand the reasons that it was tabled. The segment of clause 15 that amendment No 4 would alter refers specifically to arrangements for the code of practice.”
“However, as has been said, I raised some concerns about how the amendments were drafted, and I will go through those now, although, obviously, some of them will not be moved tonight. <BR /> <BR />There were concerns about amendment No 2 and how it was drafted. It would remove the current proposed requirement for the Department to make regulations as to the amount of the levy, the formula and its payment. The Bill states that the regulations will be subject to consultation with stakeholders and, ultimately, agreement in the Assembly through the affirmative resolution procedure. Consultation on the amount and structure of the levy is designed to ensure that all relevant interests and ideas are taken account of before any proposed levy amount or calculation formula is set in law.”
“<BR /> <BR />I am satisfied that amendment No 3 strikes the right balance between the interests of the industry more broadly and, of course, those who are meant to be served by any levy: those who are suffering or have experienced gambling harm and those who have knowledge of the health and social problems that arise from it. The amendment remains consistent with the original policy objective of creating a means through which government may impose a statutory levy on the gambling industry, the proceeds of which must be used to fund education, treatment and research. That levy will be critical going forward. On that basis, I propose amendment No 3. <BR /> <BR />I thank Members for tabling the remaining amendments. I fully understand their reasons for doing so.”
“Therefore, I propose amendment No 1, which will introduce a maximum ticket price of £100 for society lottery tickets. <BR /> <BR />I turn to amendment No 3. I agreed with the Communities Committee that the list of consultees proposed in clause 14, which relates to the powers around the creation of an industry levy, should be expanded to include organisations that deal with health and social issues relating to problem gambling and any other relevant organisations that appear to the Department to represent the interests of those impacted by gambling harm. That is the purpose of the amendment. I take the point made during Committee Stage that the objectives of the levy demand that any future consultation on it should include those who have experience of or are working to combat gambling harm.”
“The Assembly should draw reassurance not only from the legal protection but from the many voluntary organisations and sports and community bodies that run the lotteries. They do so not for selfish reasons but in the interests of the community in which they are based or work. Lotteries are not about personal profit. In that context, they are about assisting others, and most organisers of societies lotteries want to continue to run low-priced lottery draws. Many of them have said that it would be counterproductive for their cause only to sell tickets at £100, £80 or £90 in the future. <BR /> <BR />Although amendment No 1 alters clause 9, I am satisfied that it remains consistent with the original policy intent, which has always been to increase fundraising opportunities for societies lotteries.”
“Having reviewed the 1985 Order and taken appropriate advice, I am satisfied that, if required, the Department has sufficient power under articles 137(4) and 137(21) to prohibit societies from running constant or too many draws with tickets at or close to the proposed upper limit of £100.”
“The £100 represents a maximum price; it would be rarely used, for example, if a society was running a major capital project or large annual draw. Of course, I have considered the possibility that individuals may seek to abuse the higher limit, proposed in amendment No 1, for example, by running multiple or continuous draws at £100, or even £80 or £90 a ticket. Therefore, before tabling the amendment, I wanted to make sure that my Department could, at any time necessary, impose general limits on the frequency of ticket sales at certain high prices.”
“I am convinced that there is a more pragmatic option; namely, to maintain a ticket limit provision for society lotteries in the 1985 Order but to set it at a greatly enhanced level. That is why I propose to amend clause 9(a) to include a maximum ticket price of £100. I am satisfied that that change remains consistent with helping society lotteries to raise more money for good causes in the community. <BR /> <BR />Increasing the maximum allowable ticket price from £1 to £100 might seem, at first glance, to represent a massive leap, but I do not envisage that every lottery ticket will be sold at £100 or close to that amount. I expect activities such as the normal £1, or close to £1, weekly lotteries to continue as before, even after the change, should it be made.”
“In response to concerns that were raised by the Committee about clause 9(a), which proposes to repeal article 137(5) of the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements Order 1985, I agreed to table an amendment that would retain article 137(5) but still deliver my overall policy of helping societies' lotteries to raise more money for good causes in the community. At the moment, societies' lotteries are heavily constrained by article 137(5) in that the maximum amount of money that they can charge for a lottery ticket is currently set at no more than £1. That limit has not been reviewed in over 30 years. It is much too restrictive, in my view, and wholly unrealistic given the economic realities that the voluntary and community sectors face.”
“As stated by the Chair of the Committee, I consulted the then Minister for the Economy who advised that she was satisfied that clause 3 would protect workers from being forced to work on Sundays against their will. She added that a refusal to grant workers time off for bank holidays or days of religious significance, for example, Good Friday, could amount to indirect religious discrimination. Bookmakers' offices, as I said, will still be required to close on Christmas Day and where that falls on a Sunday. The same applies to clause 6 for commercial bingo halls. <BR /> <BR />I moved amendment No 1 and will cover others.”
“<BR /> <BR />The bookies are already allowed to open on Sundays in the South of Ireland and all the other jurisdictions; yet, according to the available statistics, the rates of gambling harm in those jurisdictions are significantly lower than here and continue to fall. We need the research; it is not just an issue of opening on Sundays, because that has not driven up the numbers. The numbers in those other jurisdictions are actually falling. Again, more work needs to be done on the causes of gambling harm and why people find themselves in that predicament. <BR /> <BR />With regard to the issue around the rights of betting office workers, I raised that during the previous stages of the Bill. Indeed, clause 3 is designed to protect betting office employees from being forced to work on Sundays against their will.”
“With regard to the risks that have been highlighted, I have listened to many family members who have lost loved ones or whose loved ones have been impacted. Indeed, we have heard from some Members who have been impacted by gambling. It is important that clauses 2 and 6 are not seen as stand-alone. They have to be seen as part of the broader Bill and the changes that we seek to make, which impose new controls on the betting industry through the code of practice and the creation of new offences in relation to cheating and allowing people under the age of 18 to use high-stake gaming machines.”
“Indeed, the majority of respondents to the Department's public consultation expressed support for relaxing bookmakers' office opening hours.”
“I do not make the sequencing arrangements; I have to base that on the existing legislation, and that is what I have done. <BR /> <BR />There has been some opposition to clauses 2 and 6. It is important to say that gambling is already allowed on Sundays and on Good Friday at racetracks, at gaming arcades and, of course, online. Treating bookmakers and commercial bingo clubs differently is not consistent with having the same approach across the board. There was an inconsistency in the legislation and a difference in how different gambling routes were treated. I am attempting to make sure that we address that. Of course, bookmakers' shops will continue to be prohibited from opening on Christmas Day, including Christmas Days that fall on Sundays.”
“First, I thank the Committee for Communities, the Chair and the Deputy Chair for their assistance in progressing this much awaited Bill to Consideration Stage. Of course, I thank all of the Committee's staff team and the teams in my Department for their work to get the Bill to this point. The scrutiny has obviously been robust and diligent. We have the two amendments that I am moving and the other amendments, and I have always said that I want to work with the Committee in this shortened mandate to make the first stage of the legislation as robust as possible. <BR /> <BR />Some members have commented about the sequencing of the Bill and what moves first. I do not dictate that; it is dictated by the 1985 Order. Maybe the Member will raise that with the British Minister who brought in that Order in 1985.”
“Working with the Arts Council and Future Screens, there are opportunities for organisations to apply for three years' funding and to employ people in those sectors in order to stabilise them.”
“I met said playwright just before the outbreak of COVID; I went to one of his plays. A huge amount of additional funding has gone into the sector as a result of the COVID moneys that we have received. We have worked with the sector to develop the task force report. The task force was chaired by Rotha Johnston and was made up of individuals and organisations from the sectors. We implemented the first request that the task force made, which, as I said, was for an individual artists' fund to support those working within the sectors and associated freelancers. Payments from that fund will go out shortly. <BR /> <BR />In January of this year, I launched an additional fund through the Arts Council to stabilise and support organisations. That is on top of the £10 million fund.”
“As part of the Charities Bill, which passed its Final Stage in the Assembly last week, we will, I am glad to say, start to retrospectively fix some of those issues and give peace of mind to the charities. We are continuing to work with charities. At the start of the year, we launched a new COVID recovery fund, which sees more financial resources going back into the sector in order to support it in the time ahead.”
“A High Court judgement in 2019 left 6,500 charities uncertain about the legal parameters in which they were working.”
“I was glad that I was able to bring forward that £10 million fund, which will provide hundreds of jobs in each of the sectors, as well as the community and voluntary sector and sports. That will, for the first time in a long time, see funding opportunities for organisations and three years' funding for staff. Fundamentally, it is about retaining skills in the sectors. People leaving because of burnout is a big concern. We want to retain people in those sectors by providing financial support. The scheme has been widely acknowledged by the sector, and, indeed, it meets one of the commitments in the task force report.”
“That scheme came on the back of a report by the culture, arts and heritage recovery task force, which I established in the midst of the pandemic. There was a call from all those sectors for something to be done to stabilise them beyond the pandemic. There was financial investment from the Executive to help sectors that were forced to close throughout the pandemic. We are now focused on revitalising them and making sure that they are sustained over the next period. <BR /> <BR />The first recommendation in the task force's report was on support for individual artists. Indeed, before Christmas, I opened a scheme so that individual artists could receive direct financial support. The fourth recommendation was for a skills fund to employ people in those sectors, stabilise the sectors and create employment opportunities.”
“The Housing Executive brought forward its assessment, and the Department supported its recommendations.”
“I know that we have communicated previously on those apartments. The Housing Executive has a responsibility to maintain and look after stock. If stock has gone beyond use, cannot be maintained or costs more money to upgrade than to demolish, a business case is developed, and that comes to the Department for approval. There are a number of those sites across the North, and we are working with the Housing Executive on them. Part of it is about trying to align them, where we can, with the social housing development programme. Of course, there are then bigger discussions about infrastructure more broadly and what is needed to deliver housing. We are continuing to look at all of them. If there is a more specific issue, I would be happy to take that up with you afterwards. The proposed demolition has been through a business case.”
“The Department for Infrastructure, through Budgets over the last year or so, has received an increased budget for infrastructure spend, and, indeed, I, as Minister, have supported that. I have held meetings with the Department for Infrastructure and the Minister, who, I know, has a keen interest in housing as well. Of course, I will continue to work with her and the Executive, if they get up and running again, to ensure that we prioritise housing and, indeed, the infrastructure that is needed.”
“First, I have called for housing to be a key outcome in the Programme for Government. That would mean that one of the Executive's key priorities would be to deliver housing, from its inception through to the home being ready for a tenant to move into. I hope that other parties will support that call, which has been made by the wider housing family as well. <BR /> <BR />As the Member will know, a consultation has opened on the housing supply strategy, which looks at a whole-system approach, including the infrastructure that is needed in order to build homes. I have set out a plan to build over 100,000 homes over the next 15 years, and, of course, infrastructure is needed to go with that.”
“Yes, I will have a look at that for the Member and follow up in writing with a formal response.”
“I do not have a specific update for the Member, but I have worked with DAERA and the Department for Infrastructure on revitalisation funding. On the back of COVID, there is a new £23 million fund for revitalisation, and that is going through councils for rural areas and particularly for populations below 5,000. There is a lot of interest in that capital programme at the moment. I will get the specific details for the Member's area and follow up in writing.”
“There is a lot of work to be done before the end of this mandate, not just on legislation but on new policies that will be coming forward. We already spoke about the anti-poverty strategy, and there is the LGBTQI strategy, a disability strategy and a gender strategy. Those strategies will include proposals that would have a real impact on many of our citizens out there in our communities. Unfortunately, we have instability and no Executive, and any new policies, decisions or funding going forward cannot be dealt with without that Executive functioning.”
“Indeed, with the bedroom tax itself, over 36,000 households will see the benefit of the mitigation and protection continuing.”