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 18 of 52.
“<BR /> <BR />The Chair of the Committee has mentioned that it was unfortunate that the report of the independent review of charity regulation was not completed and made available in time for the Committee's deliberations. That was unfortunate but unavoidable, given the urgency in delivering the Bill. As Members will be aware, the recent review report does not recommend the introduction of a registration threshold but does recommend a reduction in the regulatory burden around registration and subsequent annual reporting for smaller charities. That is one of the many recommendations that I am considering, but that does not mean that I have accepted it. <BR /> <BR />I thank the Chair, the Deputy Chair and members of the Committee for their dedication and support in progressing the Bill.”
“Importantly, however, it also stipulates that some decisions, which, in the main, are those that could be to the detriment of individual trustees or charity members, will never be delegated to staff. While that will put the commission in a different place to other charity regulators across these islands, it is, in our case, necessary in order to restore public trust and confidence in our system — something that is essential to good charity regulation. It is another balance that the Bill has successfully managed. In addition to that, the Bill provides the power to introduce a registration threshold by way of secondary legislation at some point in the future, should that be deemed appropriate.”
“Those protections are strengthened by the introduction of refreshed appeal rights for those decisions to be made lawful and the extension of the time frame in which those appeals can take place. It was difficult to achieve a balance between the need to restore the framework and the rights of those individuals, and I believe that the Bill, along with the Committee's scrutiny role, has achieved that balance. <BR /> <BR />The Bill not only deals with past decisions but allows for any appropriate framework of delegation to be introduced to the Charity Commission. That will allow it to function efficiently while protecting the rights of individuals. It does that by allowing for some decisions to be delegated to staff by way of a scheme of delegation, the first of which will be subject to public consultation.”
“The Bill makes it clear that their registration and those other decisions that allowed them to act in a particular way are lawful, as though they were always lawful, whilst not requiring them to provide a report and accounts to the commission for past periods, unless they choose to do so voluntarily. <BR /> <BR />Of course, legislation that has retrospective effect is unusual, and I was absolutely determined from the outset that, in making previous decisions lawful, the Bill should not impinge on the rights of individuals under the European Convention on Human Rights. The protections afforded in the Bill, whereby certain decisions will remain unlawful, will protect and allow contested matters to be pursued unhindered by the Bill, should anyone be impacted or wish to do so.”
“<BR /> <BR />My primary aim in introducing the Bill was to return charities, as far as possible, to the position that they enjoyed prior to the McBride and Court of Appeal rulings when they relied on decisions that they believed to be lawful. The charities, which had gone through the registration process in good faith, were uncertain about what those meant for their legal status, their requirements under the Charities Act 2008 and how that read across to funding opportunities. It also left a large number of charities that had acted in consequence of orders or directions that they thought were lawful in a state of confusion about what the judgement meant for them.”
“They, in turn, need to be assured that the regulation is open, transparent and proportionate and that decisions given to them by the charity regulator are made appropriately and, importantly, lawfully. <BR /> <BR />The Charities Bill will bring very real benefits to over 6,500 charities and those for whom they provide, whilst restoring the fundamental pillars of the regulatory framework — a framework that was damaged when over 7,500 regulatory decisions taken by Charity Commission staff were found to be unlawful. The fact that today sees the Bill completing its legislative passage through the Assembly will bring great relief to charities across our communities, as the vast majority of the decisions that they had relied upon will now be made lawful, thus removing uncertainty and risk for them.”
“Charities are the lifeblood of our communities. Everyone knows someone who volunteers with a charity or supports them through donations. Many of our communities benefit from the critical work that charities do across our society. The value of charities in our society and the work that they do to address need for such a wide range of beneficiaries and good causes should not be underestimated. That has never been demonstrated to greater effect than during the recent pandemic. However, for charities to enjoy the support and confidence of those who give to them, they must be well run, open and transparent. It is through the regulatory framework that their worth and legitimacy can be well demonstrated.”
“Obviously, that will be the focus of a future Minister in a new mandate. It also places a focus on the need to ensure that we have an Executive at that point. <BR /> <BR />I commend the motion to the Assembly.”
“Thank you to the Committee Chair and, indeed, all those who spoke today. I also thank the Communities Committee for its support as I have tried to push these issues for the last two years. I am glad that, at this point in the mandate, we are now proceeding with the regulations and the Consideration Stage of the Bill later today. <BR /> <BR />As for some of the issues, we obviously looked at the fact that we cannot apply the legislation retrospectively. I tried to push for it to apply retrospectively and will, going forward, continue to look at ways for that to happen. <BR /> <BR />We cannot change the regulations if the Bill is changed at the Consideration Stage later. We would have to lay new regulations, and those would have to go through the Executive before coming to the Chamber.”
“I am satisfied that the amendments will strengthen the mitigation package that was secured and ensure that payments are made to those in need. I hope that Members from across the House will join me in protecting the most vulnerable in our society by supporting the legislation.”
“In the meantime, to ensure that universal credit recipients are not disadvantaged, my Department will apply the amended policy to universal credit mitigation payments from the date that the proposed changes are applied to those claiming housing benefit. <BR /> <BR />The SL1 sets out details of the policy covered by the statutory rule (SR) considered by the Committee for Communities on 9 December 2021. The Committee confirmed that it was content for the rule to be made. The draft rule was also considered at the Executive meeting on 20 January this year, and the Executive agreed that it should be laid. <BR /> <BR />I am committed to continuing to support people affected by the changes that have been made by the British Government to the social security system here.”
“They will also protect those most in need and the poorest across our communities. I am focused on reducing child poverty, and that will go a small way in helping to achieve that. <BR /> <BR />The amendments will not be retrospective. That means that changes to an entitlement will apply from the day after the legislation comes into effect. If the regulations are approved, my officials will ensure that changes are implemented without delay. The amendments to the legislation will apply only to people who are claiming housing benefit, and I intend to bring forward further legislation to provide for statutory welfare supplementary payments for people who are claiming universal credit (UC).”
“That will allow people to qualify for mitigation payments if they have previously lost their entitlement but are impacted by the benefit cap again at a later date. Those people will receive the mitigation payments to cover their full loss of benefit. The latest analysis of the benefit cap cases shows that, as of August 2021, an estimated 640 individuals impacted by the benefit cap were not entitled to mitigation payments. On average, those individuals were losing £49 per week. Again, that is a significant amount of money for those families to find each week, and it places a huge financial burden on them. <BR /> <BR />The changes to the bedroom tax and benefit cap mitigation schemes will provide much-needed financial support, particularly to single parents, who are the group most impacted by the benefit cap.”
“It will also mean that, from the date that the legislation comes into operation, any family not receiving mitigation payments equivalent to their capped amount will have their mitigation payments increased. The current restriction on entitlement that requires a person to have been in continuous receipt of a relevant benefit from 6 November 2016 will also be removed. Any family with children that has previously been deemed ineligible because they began to claim the relevant benefit only after 6 November 2016 will become entitled to the mitigation payments to cover their full loss of benefit once the regulations come into operation. <BR /> <BR />The amendments will also remove the current restriction that prevents mitigation payments from restarting after they have been stopped.”
“The amendments that I propose will ensure that all families with children receive a mitigation payment equivalent to the amount by which their benefits have been capped, meaning that their loss will be fully mitigated. That means that the value of the mitigation payments will change to match the amount by which the family's benefits have been capped. At present, the mitigation payment can never exceed the initial mitigation amount awarded, so, if there is an increase in the amount of benefits to a family, not only is there a loss as a result of the benefit cap, but they do not get an increase in their mitigation payment. That is unacceptable. <BR /> <BR />The proposed amendment will abolish that rule to ensure that, going forward, all families with children will receive mitigation payments to cover their full loss of benefit.”
“<BR /> <BR />The proposed changes will also allow people who lost their mitigation payments as a result of the current legislation to requalify for payments if they are eligible. The most recent figures available show that, as of 31 December 2021, an estimated 260 social sector tenants impacted by the bedroom tax policy were not eligible for mitigation payments. On average, households lose £480 per year. That is a substantial financial burden for those families to incur. The proposed change to the bedroom tax mitigation scheme will provide much-needed financial support and protection for those tenants. <BR /> <BR />I move on to changes to the benefit cap mitigation scheme.”
“The proposed change will ensure that everyone affected by the bedroom tax receives mitigation payments, regardless of whether they have moved home or continue to underoccupy by at least the same number of bedrooms. That will be achieved by removing the current restriction that means that people can lose mitigation payments if they move home without being allocated management transfer status. That is the right approach, as the current policy has been unfairly penalising people. It is not right that people can lose out financially simply for moving home in the social rented sector. Under the revised mitigations scheme, payments will no longer be stopped, and every household affected by the bedroom tax will be protected.”
“The extension of that scheme is included in the Welfare Supplementary Payments (Amendment) Bill, the Consideration Stage of which will be taken later today. <BR /> <BR />The purpose of the draft Welfare Supplementary Payment (Amendment) Regulations is to close the loopholes in the existing bedroom tax and benefit cap mitigation schemes. It will strengthen those schemes to ensure that the most vulnerable are protected. It is important to note that the legislation is time-bound and will cease to have effect on 31 March 2025. That aligns with the new end date for the mitigation schemes. <BR /> <BR />I will deal first with the bedroom tax mitigation.”
“I am seeking the Assembly's approval for the draft Welfare Supplementary Payment (Amendment) Regulations (NI) 2022. As Members are aware, my Department currently administers a number of welfare mitigation schemes that are designed to alleviate the effects of some of the welfare changes that were introduced here in 2016. The mitigation schemes provide financial support to people who have been affected by various welfare reforms, including the benefit cap and the social-sector size criteria, which is otherwise known as the bedroom tax. <BR /> <BR />Members will be aware that the House recently approved the legislation to extend most of the mitigation schemes until March 2025. The only mitigation scheme that remains to be extended is that for those who are affected by the bedroom tax.”
“<BR /> <BR />That said, I would not have been able to get the regulations through the Executive without an end date, because other parties did not agree with my position on not having one. I was, therefore, faced with a choice of doing nothing and continuing to have a hiatus, or moving the situation forward. After engaging with those in the advice sector, including the Cliff Edge Coalition and others, I made the choice to move forward, as I am doing now. I hope that those issues are picked up more broadly in the time ahead. <BR /> <BR />I thank Members for their contributions, and I commend the motion to the Assembly.”
“I thank all the Members who spoke and the Communities Committee for its support of the legislation. <BR /> <BR />I will make a couple of remarks. From the outset of dealing with the extension of welfare mitigations, I have been clear that I wanted to take them all through — these regulations and others that will come next week — to close the loophole and to address the legislation on the bedroom tax. I did not want an end date to be included; I was clear on that. In fact, I did not include an end date in the regulations or the primary legislation, because, with the ongoing review of welfare mitigations, it is not about stopping the existing protections; it is about adding to them and complementing what we are already doing.”
“I can advise the House that an SL1 setting out the details of the policy covered by the statutory rule (SR) was referred to the Committee for Communities for consideration at its meeting on 16 December 2021. The Committee confirmed that it was content for the rule to be made. The draft rule has also been referred to the Executive for consideration. At the Executive meeting on 20 January, it was agreed that the rule could be laid. <BR /> <BR />It is important that we now provide assurance to the thousands of families and low-paid workers who are dependent on the mitigation payments. The legislation will provide certainty by continuing the payments for another three years until 31 March 2025. I hope that Members from across the House will join me in protecting the most vulnerable by supporting the legislation today.”
“They will also ensure that, where an individual is entitled to a welfare supplementary payment, it is payable for a maximum period of one year and that any period during the administrative period for which the person has already received a mitigation payment is counted towards their one-year period of entitlement. The regulations also introduce further amendments to omit references to the administrative period after a period of 13 months from the date when the regulations came into operation. That will ensure that specific provisions will be removed after they cease to have any practical effect without the need for further legislation. <BR /> <BR />The measures will not have an impact on the entitlement to welfare supplementary payments.”
“While continuing to make mitigation payments since 31 March 2021 was clearly the right approach, it means that my Department now needs to put measures in place to ensure that duplicate payments are not made. <BR /> <BR />In order to take account of the mitigation payments already made, the legislation before the House today includes provisions for the treatment of the period from 31 March 2020 to the date that the regulations come into operation. That period is referred to as the "administrative period". The regulations will act to prevent any duplication of payments during the administrative period.”
“That will restore statutory welfare mitigation payments for people who are affected by the benefit cap, time-limited or contributory employment and support allowance, loss or reduction of disability living allowance on transition to personal independence payment (PIP) and any associated loss or reduction of disability-related premiums and carer payments. <BR /> <BR />As I recently mentioned, since 31 March 2020, my Department has continued to make welfare mitigation payments under the sole authority of the Budget Act. That has ensured that payments were made to people who otherwise would have been eligible if the statutory schemes had continued to operate.”
“Today, I propose approval of the Welfare Supplementary Payment (Extension) Regulations, which provide for the extension of the remaining welfare mitigations until 31 March 2025. The extension will be achieved by removing the current end date of 31 March 2020, which was specified in the welfare mitigations regulations, and replacing it with a new end date of 31 March 2025. The regulations will amend the Welfare Supplementary Payments Regulations (NI) 2016, the Welfare Supplementary Payment (Loss of Carer Payments) Regulations 2016, the Welfare Supplementary Payment (Loss of Disability Living Allowance) Regulations 2016 and the Welfare Supplementary Payment (Loss of Disability-Related Premiums) Regulations 2016.”
“Under the contingency arrangements, mitigation payments have continued under the sole authority of successive Budget Acts. That approach has been agreed by the Department of Finance and is set to continue until the end of March this year. <BR /> <BR />Extension of the existing welfare mitigation schemes beyond 31 March 2020 was included in the New Decade, New Approach (NDNA) agreement and was a commitment of the Executive. Achieving that requires primary and subordinate legislation that must be approved by resolution of the Assembly. The Welfare Supplementary Payments (Amendment) Bill was recently introduced in the Assembly and completed Second Stage on 19 January. The Bill will also provide for the extension of the social sector size criterion — the bedroom tax — mitigation until 31 March 2025.”
“I seek the Assembly's approval for the Welfare Supplementary Payment (Extension) Regulations (NI) 2022. As Members will be aware, my Department administers welfare mitigation schemes that are designed to alleviate some of the welfare changes that were introduced in the North from 2016. The mitigation schemes provide financial support to people who are affected by various reforms, including the benefit cap and the social sector size criteria, known as the "bedroom tax". Members will also be aware that the existing welfare mitigation schemes came to a statutory end on 31 March 2020, in accordance with the relevant legislation. At that point, my Department introduced contingency arrangements to ensure continuity of mitigation payments for eligible people, pending the making of new legislation to extend the schemes.”
“Thank you very much, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank the Chair of the Communities Committee and Committee members for looking at the LCM and supporting it. I also thank others who contributed. I commend the motion to the Assembly.”
“It would, therefore, be beneficial and time-wise to agree that the relevant provisions of the Bill extend here. That would provide the legal clarity and certainty for schemes seeking to remove inequalities for their scheme members. Whilst I seek to avoid LCM processes where possible, in all circumstances and particularly on this, it is sensible to secure the benefits of the Bill for scheme members here by agreeing to the legislative consent motion on the Bill.”
“If it is not agreed that the provisions of the Bill will extend to here, the current lack of clarity on the GMP conversion legislation would remain a barrier to pension schemes seeking to remove inequalities from their scheme members. It would be necessary to bring forward a separate Assembly Bill to provide clarity on GMP conversion legislation. However, it is unlikely that such a Bill could complete its passage before 2023. <BR /> <BR />Importantly, under the Bill, the power to make subordinate legislation and to commence devolved provisions will rest in my Department. Likewise, the powers of control over the subordinate legislation will rest in the Assembly. The intention is that the Bill should be enacted as soon as possible.”
“It provides for a power to set out in regulations the detail about who must consent to the conversion, and it removes the requirement to notify HMRC. The proposed changes aim to help reassure pension schemes that they can use the conversion legislation to equalise overall pensions for the effect of differences between men and women resulting from GMPs. <BR /> <BR />If it is agreed that clause 2 should extend to here, that will allow those important provisions to be enacted across each of the jurisdictions at the same time. That provides legal certainty for schemes seeking to remove inequalities from their scheme members.”
“A woman will be entitled to the indexation of a GMP in payment in periods during which a man of the same age is entitled to revaluation of a GMP that has not yet been put into payment. As a result of different rates of indexation and revaluation applying at different times, a woman's GMP will, typically, start out at a higher rate than that of men. However, the value of the man's GMP may overtake that of the woman's over time. Those differences create inequalities in the pension income received by men and women who have GMPs, depending on individual ages and circumstances. <BR /> <BR />In summary, the Bill seeks to clarify that the legislation applies to survivors as well as to earners. It provides for the power to set out in regulations the conditions that must be met in relation to survivors' benefits.”
“As a result, where a woman and a man have an identical work history, the woman's overall GMP will be greater than that of the man. A woman is entitled to receive her GMP at the earlier age of 60, while a man is entitled to receive his at 65, creating further differences between the GMP that is payable to men and to women. <BR /> <BR />This is the result of indexation and revaluation requirements. There is a requirement that GMPs are increased annually to protect the value of a member's pension from being eroded by the effects of inflation when in payment or if the member has not yet retired but is no longer an active member of the scheme. Indexation and revaluation rates are different because their GMP ages differ.”
“Although the GMP rules were abolished for the contracted-out service after 5 April 1997, past accruals remained subject to them. <BR /> <BR />The Pensions Act (NI) 2008 amended the Pension Schemes (NI) Act 1993 to introduce provisions enabling schemes to convert members' GMP rights to the rights of other scheme benefits. The intention was to enable the scheme to adopt a unified and streamlined benefit structure, subject to a certain safeguard to protect the members' interests. <BR /> <BR />The 1993 Act requires occupational pension schemes to calculate the pay of GMPs differently, depending on the person's gender. A woman's GMP accrues at a greater rate than that of a man in recognition that, at the time, for state pension purposes, a woman's working life was five years shorter than that of a man.”
“Many pension schemes operate across the jurisdictions. Following the European Court of Justice decision in Barber 1990, the position has been that schemes are required to equalise overall pensions for the effect of inequalities caused by GMPs. The GMP is the minimum pension that a pension scheme that was contracted out of the additional state pension between 6 April 1978 and 5 April 1997 has to provide to its members. GMPs that accrue to individuals who were contracted between those dates create inequalities between men and women in the overall pensions that they receive. That is largely due to the fact that, during that period, state pension ages for men and women were different, leading to different accrual rates and different ages from which GMPs were payable.”
“Private pensions are subject to a complex web of tax law, which is an excepted matter; financial services law, which is a reserved matter; and general pensions law, which is a devolved matter.”
“The clause amends provisions in the Pensions Schemes (NI) Act 1993 and the Pensions Act (NI) 2008 that allow occupational pension schemes to convert GMP benefits into other scheme benefits. The amendments provide for NI pension provision to correspond with the provision for England, Scotland and Wales contained in clause 1. <BR /> <BR />Although pensions are a devolved matter, pension policy and legislation here generally operate in line with corresponding pension provision in England, Scotland and Wales, in line with section 87 of the NI Act 1998.”
“The Pension Schemes (Conversion of Guaranteed Minimum Pensions) Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 16 June 2021. The provisions in the Bill address concerns that the operation of certain provisions of the conversion legislation relating to guaranteed minimum pensions (GMPs) is unclear and should be amended to make them easier to use. The amendments will simplify and clarify how those highly technical provisions operate. The aim is to make it easier for schemes to equalise pensions for the effect of differences between men and women resulting from GMPs. <BR /> <BR />Clause 2, which relates to the conversion of GMPs, makes provision for devolved matters and requires a legislative consent motion.”
“Indeed, I thank Mark and Anne from the Department, who are here, as well as Mickey Kelly and the rest of the team who have worked with me and the stakeholders over the past couple of years to get to this point. As we said, this is a staging post, and more work will be done. It is important to note that, in a shortened mandate, and during a global health pandemic, we were still able to move this legislation, which will come into effect in order to assist people from April this year. It will be part of many measures. I am actively looking at a children's funeral fund — I know that the Member raised other queries — and obviously I made a bid for that in the Budget. I am hopeful that there will be a positive announcement on additional support very soon. Again, I thank Members, and I commend the Bill to the Assembly.”
“Thank you to everybody who has spoken. I have listened carefully to the comments throughout the Bill's passage. There has been huge support for the Bill to be passed within this mandate. Again, I thank Members, the Chair, the Deputy Chair and, indeed, the whole Communities Committee for their role in allowing it to be fast-tracked outside the normal process. <BR /> <BR />Members touched on the huge engagement on this issue through organisations that I mentioned before and other organisations such as Age NI, but also clinicians, who have worked with the Department on crafting the legislation and looking at what more needs to be done beyond this Assembly mandate and beyond the Bill. I, my officials and the team in the Department are committed to looking at this further.”
“My Department has established a steering group to oversee the operational implementation of the reform. The changes will also be communicated to the wider public, the advice sector and the clinical community prior to its introduction. Once introduced, the reformed system will better meet the needs of those with a terminal illness here, something that we all want to see. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.”
“I assure Members of my commitment to continue to keep the provision under review and to explore further how we can best support people who face a diagnosis of a terminal illness. I want to continue to work with the sector and organisations that support families and individuals, which will include looking at the feasibility of a clinical-led model in the time ahead. For me, the Bill is very much a staging post in a wider process that we will look at. <BR /> <BR />The Bill represents a critical step that we can take now to deliver meaningful change in this Assembly mandate, before it ends in March. Subject to the Assembly passing the Bill today and its receiving Royal Assent in the coming months, I anticipate that the reform will be brought into operation in early April.”
“<BR /> <BR />I will summarise the main purpose of the legislation. It will extend the life expectancy criterion in the terminal illness provision from six months to 12 months. That wider 12-month definition will align more with the definition already used by Health and Social Care (HSC) for end-of-life care. Most importantly, the change will bring more terminally ill people within the scope of the fast-track process. Crucially, those people will not have to go through the normal application and assessment route to meet the conditions of entitlement. They will get automatic access to benefits and much-needed financial support. <BR /> <BR />I acknowledge and reiterate that this is not the end of the road on where we can move to on the issue.”
“I am pleased to move the Social Security (Terminal Illness) Bill at Final Stage. I thank the Committee and the Assembly Members from across the political spectrum who gave their support to this important Bill and allowed its speedy progression through the Assembly in such a short time. <BR /> <BR />When I first came into post in January 2020, I met representatives from organisations who were lobbying to scrap the six-month rule. Off the back of that campaign and from their working with me and others, we are now doing just that. I give special thanks to Marie Curie, the Motor Neurone Disease Association, Macmillan Cancer Support and the many others who worked to support those organisations in getting the Bill to this point. I also welcome the positive response to the Bill from the organisations that campaigned.”
“I hope that we actually build on them when the ongoing review by Les Allamby is completed. <BR /> <BR />Again, I urge the House to pass this important draft legislation and get it cleared before the end of the mandate. I commend the Bill to the House.”
“There was some commentary about the mitigations. Make no mistake about it: if those mitigations were not secured in 2017, all the welfare changes that the Tory Government wanted to bring in would have been imposed on people here. There was no stopping the British Tory Government. We have seen what they have done with Brexit and other issues against the wishes of people and the majority of the population here. That was an ideological drive by the Tory party. I commend those parties that had the foresight to work together in order to militate against the worst impacts of that. When we talk to community and civil rights activists who are based in the likes of England, we hear that they have seen the shattering of communities because those mitigations were not secured in their local areas. We managed to secure them. We are extending them.”
“Of course, as Minister for Communities, I am more than happy to play my part in that wider focus.”
“<BR /> <BR />We see other issues, such as the cost of living and the rising fuel crisis, across the board, but we need to systemically address them. I agree that mitigations are one way to do that. Going by some of the commentary on the cost of living and the rise in inflation rates over the past while, the global fuel crisis is obviously playing a big part in that. However, so, too, is the squeezing of salaries for many in our local economy. Broader issues need to be addressed, such as the low-wage workforce, workers' terms and conditions and the rights of workers to unionise and look at collective bargaining. There is a series of issues that we need to systemically address in order to build an economy that actually works for workers and people more broadly.”
“I cannot give the exact date. I gave the Committee an update on how many times I brought it to the Executive. When I brought forward the proposal in January, going into February, of that year, the principle of what I was proposing was approved by the Executive. Therefore, when I finally brought forward the legislation, I was confused that it did not appear on the Executive's agenda because the principle of what I was proposing — to have no end date — had been agreed by the Executive. <BR /> <BR />We are here now. I am glad that we are at the Second Stage of the Bill. From meeting the Cliff Edge Coalition and others, I know that they want to make sure that the legislation is approved by the Assembly before the end of the mandate. Obviously, the Committee is busy with other pieces of legislation as well.”