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 30 of 52.
“I beg to introduce the Private Tenancies Bill [NIA 32/17-22], which is a Bill to amend the law relating to private tenancies.”
“People are entitled to their opinion. That is what a political Chamber is about. I propose that we proceed with the amendments.”
“I do not know where the pandemic will be this time next year. There will be an election in the middle of that, and you will have purdah and other restrictions on legislating. It is about trying to build in flexibility where we can. With this legislation, I have demonstrated that I have worked with Members and am proposing changes to the legislation, as reflected in the amendments. <BR /> <BR />I thank everyone for their contributions.”
“There have been engagements by my officials with council officials, NILGA and SOLACE on what is in the Bill. Those engagements have been happening. It is not just a case of the Minister having all that power, because any change will have to be agreed in the House, which will have the scrutiny role. I have also given a commitment to issue a call for evidence to allow councils and others to tell us about their experience with remote meetings over the past year. Over the past week, some wanted me to go much further, and I said that it would not be good to go further than what I propose, because we need to consult and to look at the unintended consequences. <BR /> <BR />This is not about a power grab, and it is silly even to try to say that it is. This is about trying to be flexible and work with councils so that they can make decisions.”
“<BR /> <BR />I sat with you and other Members outside to listen to the concerns that were raised here over a week ago on how the initial clause was set out. I made those changes instantly, but I see that you choose ignore the fact that I did move. I have tried to facilitate, to move —”
“The legislation has been developed in consultation with councils, which are calling out for the legislation to be extended. While there is no formal engagement process because of the timescales within which we had to introduce the Bill, there has been engagement, and the legislation has been discussed with NILGA and SOLACE. I met representatives of those organisations in previous engagements that I had with councils. Any change in the legislation will be subject to approval in the Assembly. Any changes to the provisions, including those that cover council meetings and members of the public listening to those meetings, are covered in the 2014 Act. It is laid out clearly that any changes would have to be passed by the Assembly. Those are some of the things that I have changed over the past couple of weeks.”
“I thank the Chair and all those who contributed, even the puppy. I wish that I had as much power and influence as Mr Allister said I had. If he listened or was here during all my debates, he would know that I take interventions in the Chamber. You can try and make that false accusation, but that is what it is: false.”
“At Consideration Stage, Members agreed that clause 5(2) should be omitted. Amendment Nos 2, 3 and 4 make minor amendments to what is now clause 3, which are required as a consequence of the removal of clause 5(2). They tidy up the clause by removing any remaining references to the 2022-23 year and to the clause applying for more than one financial year.”
“There is no doubt that the ability to hold remote meetings has been a beneficial tool for a number of reasons. As mentioned during previous debates, it has provided flexibility for council members with young families, for those with caring responsibilities, for those with illnesses or disabilities and for those who live in rural areas and normally have to travel long distances to attend meetings. It also allows councillors to fully engage and participate whatever their circumstances. <BR /> <BR />The new clause provides a means for us to extend the remote meetings provisions by regulations that, under the draft affirmative procedure, will be subject to robust Assembly scrutiny. I urge Members to support the new clause. <BR /> <BR />I turn to amendment Nos 2, 3 and 4.”
“However, with Assembly elections due next year and given the current number of Bills in the legislative programme, it may not be possible for a second Bill to be progressed during the current mandate. That could leave a further gap in cover for remote meetings after the Coronavirus Act expires or is suspended, should they still be considered necessary because of any further upsurge in COVID-19. Also, it seems from Members' comments during earlier debates on the Bill that there would be some support for providing continued flexibility to local government for post-pandemic remote or hybrid working.”
“The level of Assembly scrutiny for any regulations made under the clause has been changed to draft affirmative rather than negative procedure, so regulations could not be made unless laid in draft and approved by the Assembly. If the new clause is not approved today, it will mean that the Department will have no means of further extending the provisions on remote meetings beyond March 2022 other than by moving further primary legislation. It would mean councils not having cover to hold meetings by remote or hybrid means after 25 March 2022 or, if the Coronavirus Act were scheduled to expire, at an earlier date. A further Bill would need to be introduced and to proceed via accelerated passage.”
“Of course, our intention will be to engage fully with councils on any proposals to extend the remote meeting provisions and to gather evidence from councils of their experience over the past year of holding remote or hybrid meetings. <BR /> <BR />I will now set out how I propose that the new clause differs from the previous clause 2. The new clause focuses on particulars around providing councils with the ability to hold remote meetings. It also clarifies that any regulations made under it would be for the purposes of facilitating remote or hybrid meetings and not to permit the Department to make more general amendments to the provisions on meetings in the Local Government Act 2014, which has never been the intention.”
“During Consideration Stage, I indicated that, while I would oppose clause 2 due to Members' concerns, I intended to table an amendment at Further Consideration Stage to replace clause 2 and to deal with any unintended consequences of its removal. <BR /> <BR />The proposed new clause would allow my Department, by subordinate legislation, to further extend the ability of councils to hold remote or hybrid meetings should that be necessary because of the continuing issues with coronavirus post March 2022, when the Coronavirus Act expires, or sooner, should the Act be suspended earlier than that. It would also allow my Department to provide councils, on a more permanent basis, with flexibility to hold hybrid or remote meetings, should that be considered desirable at some point in the future.”
“The intention behind clause 2 had been to create an enabling power to allow provisions for remote meetings to be further extended or even made permanent by means of subordinate legislation should that be considered necessary or desirable after the regulations being extended by clause 1 end, which is currently scheduled for March 2022. <BR /> <BR />As I explained at Consideration Stage, the intention was not to provide the Department with a means to restrict the rights of councils; rather, it was to provide flexibility for councils to enable them to hold meetings remotely or by hybrid means and to make provision on how legislation governing council meetings should apply in the context and to facilitate meetings held remotely or by hybrid means.”
“Amendment No 1 proposes a new clause as a replacement for clause 2, which was opposed at Consideration Stage. I listened to Members' concerns about clause 2 as introduced, including concerns about the level of Assembly scrutiny and that subordinate legislation made under the clause would be subject to concerns that it would enable changes to be made to wider provisions on council meetings, as set out in the Local Government Act 2014 and concerns that it would enable changes to be made to voting rights, speaking rights and participation rights.”
“I know that it will not be the end of their work. They will want to make further improvements, and I will want to work with them to do so in the time ahead. <BR /> <BR />There have been many false dawns with the legislation. The sun is out today, however. It is shining, and I am glad that we are now at the point at which we can move ahead with the legislation so that it is up and running for October this year. With that in mind, I commend this long-awaited Bill to the House.”
“I raised and shared those concerns about some of the amendments that were placed. I did say, particularly in discussions with DOF, that there could be implications and that more work needed to done to ensure that we had evidence-based assessments from which firm proposals could come. That was not accepted. No doubt, however, there will be the opportunity to do that in the review that has been built into the Bill. <BR /> <BR />I end by quickly thanking my team of Carol, Liam and Suzanne, as well as Claire, who also helped. I thank the Chair, the Deputy Chair and, indeed, the whole Committee for Communities, Members in the Chamber and, importantly, those outside the Chamber who have been campaigning for change and for the additional protections that we have brought into this balanced legislation.”
“I would prefer not to, if that is OK, as I am winding. Sorry. <BR /> <BR />A review is built into the legislation to look at the issues. I am glad that I have been able to work with the Committee and with Members in the Chamber who have genuine ambitions to make the Bill as good as it can be. I completely agree that, if we were to overhaul the Bill completely, we would probably be here for another two mandates. I was keen that we make progress with legislation in this shortened mandate, so I am glad that, finally, we are today on the cusp of taking forward the process. We are updating our laws and bringing them into 2021, where they should be. The review will look to the future. It will look at where there are shortcomings. <BR /> <BR />Some of the potential negative impacts have been raised.”
“Again, I completely support that. I am keen to engage with the Minister for the Economy on those issues and on banning zero-hours contracts and addressing other workers' rights issues.”
“In the legislation, there are additional protections around local residents' rights and their right to object to extended opening, particularly on week nights, when, the next day, people have to get up to go to work and children have to go to school. Those additional protections have been built into the Bill. <BR /> <BR />I completely agree with Members on workers' rights. A bill of rights should be introduced in the Assembly; I completely support that. Workers' rights need to be a fundamental part of a bill of rights. It is, however, disingenuous to say that that can be done in this Bill, because, legally, it cannot. I have scoped out the Bill's remit. It is not right to lead people down a path by saying that it can be done. That is not to say that we do not need to enhance workers' rights here to deal with a variety of issues.”
“There is work to be done through the Department of Health on minimum unit pricing, which, I know, was raised by some Members today, and I wholeheartedly support that approach.”
“Thank you to everybody who has contributed today. This has been a long time in the making, as was said. Carol, who is one of my officials, has been working on this since 2005, and it has taken a few decades to get to this point. However, we are at this point now, and I am glad that we have been able to get here within a shortened Assembly mandate and even in the midst of dealing with a global pandemic. <BR /> <BR />I have said from the start that this is a balanced Bill. It tries to balance the relaxation of moving our legislation on liquor licensing into 2021, which is long overdue — not just the industry but the public, broadly, agree with that — with the health messaging. Of course, there are additional protections around how supermarkets, for example, can advertise drinks promotions.”
“I have mentioned previously that I truly believe that the Bill is better as a result of the scrutiny that was applied not just in Committee but in the Chamber. I thank all the officials from my Department, the Assembly and the Committee who made that process easier. I am glad that we are at this point, and I commend the Bill to the Assembly.”
“The report, which is to be produced as soon as possible after three years from the date of commencement, will identify how useful the provision has been for local producers. The review is not limited to local producers but extends to all the provisions in the Bill. There is an opportunity to amend many of those provisions using regulations, and the review will provide the necessary evidence, should that need arise. <BR /> <BR />I acknowledge the contribution of all the stakeholders who have been involved with the Bill, both in the House and outside, and I thank them for that. That includes Members in the House who engaged in debates that, at their longest, lasted eight hours. I thank the Chair, Deputy Chair and members of the Communities Committee, as well as all of the staff behind the scenes.”
“There is no one-size-fits-all answer to the issue of planning law and industrial derating. All businesses must have appropriate planning permission to carry on the business that is operated in its premises. I have confirmed that the sale of alcoholic drinks at a local producer's premises will be ancillary to the main business but the amount of industrial derating applied to any producer's premises following the granting of a liquor licence will be determined on a case-by-case basis by the Department of Finance's Land and Property Services (LPS). <BR /> <BR />Concerns were raised that the Committee amendment to allow taprooms does not go far enough to enable local producers to operate a viable business. The Bill requires that my Department reviews the implementation and effectiveness of the provision and produces a report on its findings.”
“<BR /> <BR />I take the opportunity to thank all those who fed into the Bill with amendments and in getting agreement to make the Bill what it is today. Indeed, on numerous occasions, the Committee Chair commented about the hours of discussion that were dedicated to the addition of a local producer's licence, particularly to the taproom element of such a licence. <BR /> <BR />There have been calls for practical information to be provided to local producers who wish to apply for a liquor licence that would include information on the implications in respect of planning law and industrial derating. The Bill amends the relevant schedules to the Licensing Order 1996 to set out the steps that must be taken when making an application to the court for any category of licence.”
“The changes set out in the Bill will provide much-needed support to our hospitality sector and our tourism industry, particularly at a time when both are rebuilding their businesses while still subject to a level of restrictions as a result of the pandemic. It will give them an opportunity to expand their offering and continue to provide the high levels of service that locals and visitors have come to expect and to demand. <BR /> <BR />I have spoken about the importance of being mindful of the impact that alcohol-related harm can have on individuals and communities. I am confident that I have delivered a balanced Bill that includes all the relevant safeguards and protections for reducing the potential of alcohol-related harm.”
“I suppose that everybody will be glad that we have got to this stage of the Bill and are now progressing it after all these years. I welcome the final opportunity to explain why I am pleased that the legislation has progressed and is before the Assembly today, particularly given that we have done this in the midst of a global pandemic. Again, I thank the Committee for the scrutiny role that it has played and the timeline in which it has done that to ensure that we can get this done before the summer recess. <BR /> <BR />I have spoken before in the Chamber about how long it has taken to get to this stage. Today is a milestone in bringing our liquor licensing laws into 2021.”
“The Committee will look at it in detail and will call in charities and other organisations to feed into that scrutiny stage. I am glad that we are at this point and that we can progress the Bill, and I commend it to the next stage.”
“As was rightly said, they played a pivotal role and will continue to play a pivotal role going forward, and that is why the legislation is crucial at this point. <BR /> <BR />I also recognise that there is more to be done as a result of the judgement and beyond and from listening to the sector. It was for those reasons that I set up the independent panel to do a further review that will hopefully be with me later this year. I know that there will be engagement with the Committee on that, but, more importantly, there will be engagement with the charities sector, because it has the direct experience not just of engaging with the commission but of being out on the ground. <BR /> <BR />Again, I thank everybody. The Bill will move to the scrutiny stage.”
“First, thanks to the Chair and members of the Communities Committee and all those who made a contribution today. <BR /> <BR />There is no doubt that the judgement last year had consequences and had an impact on the sector. The Bill aims to provide a legislative fix and ensure that we restore the regulatory framework going forward. When it came through last year, we could not have foreseen a global health pandemic happening within a month and everywhere closing down, but, that said, as has been reflected in the Chamber, I was able to work with the charities sector and the broader community and voluntary sector in stepping up resources very quickly to meet the needs of communities. That included a charities fund being established.”
“No. I am sure you will make your contribution when the debate opens. <BR /> <BR />It will allow me, the current Minister, or any future Minister for Communities to determine how the commission will discharge its functions. It will also provide a vehicle to introduce a considerable relaxation in the framework for a large number of small charities through a registration threshold, should that prove desirable. In passing the Bill, we can help to rebuild the regulatory framework for our valued charitable sector and increase public confidence in it and in the regulator. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.”
“<BR /> <BR />To summarise, the Bill restores the majority of charities to the position they were in before the McBride judgement but with the strongest possible protections for human rights.”
“The power will allow for the construction of the necessary framework around such a threshold by amending, repealing or revoking any statutory provision applicable to charities here, making consequential, supplemental and incidental provision that may be required to apply or disapply any provision of the Act or amend any offences or introduce similar or corresponding ones as a consequence of the threshold. In addition, it will provide for the gathering and use of any evidence required for the threshold, the voluntary registration of a body that falls below the threshold or the removal from the register, if requested, of any charity that falls below the threshold.”
“The regulation power as drafted is, therefore, wide enough to allow for any threshold to be set at income only or at income and assets.”
“The independent review, therefore, is considering that issue, and I look forward to seeing the evidence that it brings to bear. In the interim, it is not my intention to introduce a specific registration threshold in the Bill. However, I want to include a power to introduce a threshold through regulations, should that be recommended by the review or should it become desirable at some point in future. <BR /> <BR />Any such policy will be subject to full consultation in order to ensure that a fundamental change to the framework of regulation is properly scrutinised. In addition, I propose that any subsequent regulations will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure to allow debate and scrutiny in the Assembly.”
“<BR /> <BR />In addition to addressing the impacts of the judgement, the Bill provides a vehicle to address an issue that has long been called for by the charities sector: the introduction of a registration threshold, below which a charity would not be required to register or be subject to annual reporting requirements if deemed appropriate. Although I am led to believe that such a fundamental change in the framework of regulation would be widely welcomed by the charities sector, it may have unintended consequences that cannot be properly investigated in the time frame required for the Bill. <BR /> <BR />There is also little evidence as to where the threshold should be set and whether it should be restricted to annual income or should include consideration of an organisation's assets.”
“<BR /> <BR />I believe that in order to provide the necessary public confidence in the system, a collective decision-making committee is required for those decisions. The Bill, therefore, stipulates that decisions arising from a statutory inquiry that can have significant consequences for individuals, such as the removal of trustees and the commission's powers to make regulations, can never be delegated to staff. The independent review of charity regulation, which I mentioned earlier, has sought the views of stakeholders on delegation and is considering how the commission can improve as a regulator. Its deliberations will, no doubt, help to shape the future scheme should I, or a future Minister for Communities, determine that one is appropriate.”
“The Court of Appeal judgement stated that careful consideration should be given as to whether functions should be delegated to staff and that it should be reflected in unambiguous language if so determined. <BR /> <BR />The Bill therefore allows for a future limited power of delegation to staff, provided that the decisions to be delegated are set out in a scheme of delegation with the prior agreement of the Minister for Communities. However, even though staff take all decisions under the charity regulations in the South of Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales, our particular experience leads me to conclude that some decisions here should never be taken by commission staff, as they have significant consequences for individuals.”
“Since the Mc Bride judgement, the commission has been operating a decision-making committee in accordance with schedule 1 to the 2008 Act. Although that is now working well, the part-time nature of the commissioner's roles means that they cannot take the number of decisions as quickly as staff previously did. That is, therefore, not seen as a long-term effective or value-for-money solution as to how the commission functions. As more of the Act is commenced, more decisions of varying complexity will be required. <BR /> <BR />As it stands, approximately 30 different types of decisions are required to be taken. That will increase to approximately 80 should all parts of the Act be commenced.”
“<BR /> <BR />To add further protections for charities, trustees and affected parties, the Bill will provide fresh appeal rights in respect of any decision that is made lawful in accordance with section 3 of the Act. That will allow a challenge where it could be felt that a decision is not, in fact, in the charity's best interests, which is thought to be in only a small number of cases. It is not anticipated that many, if any, such appeals will be forthcoming, as only a handful of those decisions were challenged originally and all the affected decisions will be between three and eight years old when the Bill receives Royal Assent. <BR /> <BR />In addition to the need to address the implications of the judgement on past decisions, there is a need to ensure that the commission can function effectively.”
“Concern was raised that, after the Bill receives Royal Assent, if registration were treated as always having been lawful, charities that had not voluntarily provided their annual reports and accounts since the McBride judgement would be required to provide them for the periods prior to Royal Assent, which would cause them to incur additional work and cost. To remove any such uncertainty, the Bill ensures that that is not the case. Instead, in order to rebuild the framework, those charities will be required to comply with those accounting and reporting requirements for the first full financial year after 1 April 2022 and every year thereafter. That date will provide certainty and allow them to plan ahead.”
“The Bill will, therefore, make approximately 7,000 decisions, orders and directions lawful, and treat them as if they were always lawful. That includes not only the register but consent sought by charities and provided by commission staff that allowed charities to make changes to their operations in the interests of their beneficiaries, such as expanding or diversifying their field of operations or the services that they provide to the public. Without the Bill, approximately 6,500 organisations would be required to go through the regulation process all over again. Representations from the sector have expressed a disbelief at that prospect.”
“A number of individuals remain aggravated by the actions of commission staff, and I do not wish to do anything in the Bill that would impinge on their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. The Bill will, therefore, ensure that certain decisions that, in the main, were taken during the statutory inquiry and that have proved controversial in some cases will remain unlawful. Those decisions will therefore proceed to their natural conclusion by way of the courts if necessary. The Bill, however, will reinstate the lawfulness of the decisions that are considered to be uncontroversial, were taken for the benefit of the charities concerned and were, in the overwhelming majority of cases, welcomed by those charities. They will return to the position that they were in prior to the McBride judgement.”
“<BR /> <BR />The decision that I have taken to bring forward primary legislation is designed to restore the regulatory framework and then seek to improve it through recommendations that may arise as a result of the review. I am clear from the advice that I have taken that making past decisions taken by staff unlawful is the only way in which to rebuild the regulatory framework without requiring charities to go through registration and other decision-making processes all over again, and that an amendment to the Act through primary legislation with retrospective effect is the only way in which to render those decisions lawful. However, I recognise that it would be unwise and unjust to make all decisions taken by staff lawful.”
“I subsequently determined, having taken the advice of counsel and consulting the Attorney General, that a Charities Bill was required to bring certainty to the sector and to fix the problem that was not of its making. In parallel, I felt that it was important to carry out a review of charity regulation here and to include the role of the regulator and the Department in it. I therefore appointed an independent expert panel to conduct the review. It has been gathering evidence through engaging widely over the past few months. I expect to receive its report in the autumn, and it will inform any future policy changes that I may propose.”
“The unlawfulness of the register meant that the charities that had gone through the registration process in good faith were uncertain about what it would mean in terms of their legal status, their requirements under the Act and access to funding opportunities. It also left a large number of charities that had acted as a consequence of orders or directions that they thought were lawful in a state of confusion as to what the judgement meant for them. <BR /> <BR />In the immediate aftermath of the Court of Appeal judgement, my Department worked with the commission and spoke to several important advocates for and representatives of the sector to determine the issues to be addressed and the course of action to be taken.”
“These judgements found that the commission has no express or implied power to delegate its functions to staff acting alone. Instead, these functions could only be delivered by the commission, that is, the board, or a decision-making committee established by it. This rendered approximately 7,500 orders, directions and decisions made by commission staff prior to the McBride judgement unlawful. <BR /> <BR />The judgement had an immediate impact on our charity sector, rendering the register, containing over 6,000 charities, unlawful. The register is the bedrock of our regulatory system. It provides the visibility and accountability that is envisaged in the Act.”
“<BR /> <BR />The commission opened its first statutory inquiry in 2013, shortly after taking on its investigation powers, which allow it to act for the protection of charities. Such powers allow the commission, by order, for example, to suspend or remove trustees, appoint new trustees to a charity, restrict a charity's transactions or appoint an interim manager to act as a receiver and manager in respect of the property and affairs of the charity. These actions can have a profound effect on individuals, in terms of their role within the charity, and on the conduct of the charity's affairs. <BR /> <BR />It was the actions of the commission taken by staff with respect to two charities that ultimately led to the McBride High Court judgement of May 2019, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal in February 2020.”
“It is important to those charities that the public have trust and confidence in them so that they can thrive, particularly as we continue to plot our way through the pandemic and into a fairer and more inclusive society. <BR /> <BR />The Charities Act (NI) 2008 introduced a regulatory framework for charities here to ensure public confidence and provide assurance around charitable giving. It created the Charity Commission as the statutory regulator for charities, charged it with creating and maintaining a register of charities and provided it with considerable powers to act on the protection of charities. For the first time, all charities established here were required to register with the commission and be subject to the annual reporting and accounting requirements that came with it. There are currently no exceptions to this requirement.”