Michelle O'Neill denies attending Bobby Storey funeral impacted compliance with covid lockdown
Northern Ireland First Minister Michelle O'Neill has said there is no evidence to suggest there was a fall in compliance with Covid restrictions after Bobby Storey's funeral.Former Northern Ireland first minister Arlene Foster made the claim at the Covid-19 Inquiry in Belfast on Wednesday as it examined Stormont decisions made on test, trace and isolation.The former DUP leader said there was a fall in compliance after Sinn Féin ministers, including Ms O'Neill, attended the large-scale funeral for the senior republican in west Belfast in June 2020, when there were restrictions on social gatherings.
'I don't think that we were slow to promote compliance because day after day at press conferences we were urging the public to comply,' Mrs Foster told the inquiry on Wednesday.'There was a breakdown in compliance after the attendance of senior members of Sinn Féin at a high-ranking republican funeral at the end of June, which caused severe difficulties in Northern Ireland with compliance and adherence.'She said that despite efforts made, including working with the PSNI and giving money to councils to employ Covid marshals, there was 'a difficulty which still hung over the Executive' around non-compliance because of the Storey funeral.Asked about Mrs Foster's comments, Ms O'Neill told the inquiry: 'I think, unfortunately, I believe Arlene Foster raised that issue again today in the inquiry because the comments are politically motivated.'I don't believe there is any evidence that suggests that actually is the case.'Ms O'Neill apologised for having attended the funeral at the Covid inquiry in 2024.Earlier on Wednesday, Mrs Foster said it was 'inhumane' that people had to die alone during the Covid-19 pandemic.The former DUP leader said if she could change one thing from that period, it would be that families should have been allowed to make their own informed decisions on being with their dying loved ones.Asked about whether black, Asian and minority ethnic groups suffered as a result of pre-existing inequalities, Mrs Foster said this was true 'of a number of different groups'.'Young people, for example, were denied chances in life that they would have otherwise had,' she said.'Those living alone were isolated and lonely, people who were dying alone in hospital and if I could change one thing, my lady, it would be that.'We should have given families all of the information, told them about the risks, and allowed them to make the decisions as to whether they wanted to be with their loved ones as they were dying.'Because I think it is quite inhumane, when one thinks about it, to allow someone to die alone in the way that so many people did.'Mrs Foster and Ms O'Neill were also asked about the decision to end contact tracing on March 12 2020.Mrs Foster said the decision was made after a Cobra meeting on March 12, at which she, Ms O'Neill, and Health Minister Robin Swann had little opportunity to engage and were 'in receive mode'.Both Mrs Foster and Ms O'Neill said they did not take it from the Cobra meeting that contact tracing was to stop.Mrs Foster said: 'I didn't have the understanding after that Cobra meeting, clearly wrongly now, that we were going to stop contact tracing as a consequence of the discussions at that Cobra meeting. The Department of Health clearly did have that understanding and stopped the contact tracing.'NI chief medical officer Michael McBride told the inquiry that testing capacity issues were behind the decision to stop community testing and that the ending of contact tracing was a 'second order' as a result of that.'Even a week after 12 March, we had less than 200 tests available to us in Northern Ireland on a daily basis, and even that was limited because of the lack of reagents that we had and swabs that we had because of global supply issues.'Mrs Foster was asked whether, given there were 20 confirmed cases in Northern Ireland at the time, a different decision about stopping testing and contact tracing on March 12 could have been made.'There was an option… but those options weren't taken. I think we were quite early in the pandemic, and were not prepared for what was coming at us, to be honest with you,' she said on Wednesday.Mrs Foster said that test and trace was not initially seen as a 'significant' issue that warranted an Executive decision.She said in hindsight it 'probably should have come to the Executive' but also added it 'probably would have made it slower'.'I know that there was a very real concern at that time that the amount of work officials were being asked to do was quite significant, and I'm not suggesting that it didn't come to the Executive for this reason but it would have certainly slowed decision-making down at that time,' she said.She said there was no 'plug and play' system in place for contact tracing and said she hoped one lesson would be the ability to 'scale up at speed if something like this were to happen again'.Ms O'Neill said she had raised concerns about ending contact tracing in March, as it went against the advice of the World Health Organisation (WHO).Notes by Ms O'Neill, who was then the deputy First Minister, were read out from a meeting on March 16 where she wrote 'GB approach nightmare compared to rest of world'.She told the inquiry it was 'absolutely' a decision by the Department of Health to stop contact tracing in mid-March.Ms O'Neill was asked about a note she had that the Department of Health would 'prefer to use resources to combat Covid-19 rather than count, self-isolate for seven days first rather than testing'.'I think perhaps it could be characterised as a defensive statement that let's not just count, let's do something else. But I believe that, again, it wasn't the right approach.'Ms O'Neill was asked by inquiry chairwoman Baroness Heather Hallett whether she was not listened to because of deep political divides in Northern Ireland.'The fact that we live on an island, the fact that we were one single epidemiological unit, that wasn't factored into decision-making.'That's not a political point, that's just a logical point. I didn't feel like that was being taken on board.'I think perhaps that, at times, could be seen as I wanted to follow everything in the south. I didn't. I wanted to follow everything that worked, and I didn't mind where it came from, as long as it worked for the people that we represented.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wales Online
an hour ago
- Wales Online
Lack of parks in part of Swansea 'a disgrace' but things are set to change
Lack of parks in part of Swansea 'a disgrace' but things are set to change A councillor claimed money had been set aside for new parks years ago, but nothing had happened. Now it seems things are finally moving Cllr Sam Bennett by land off Langdon Road, SA1, where a play area has long been planned and will be built (Image: Sam Bennett ) A lack of play areas in Swansea's SA1 - described as a "disgrace" by one councillor - is being addressed. Two new parks are to be created at the former docklands area off Langdon Road. Between them they'll include a pump track for BMX and scooter riders, a basketball area, play equipment, green space, benches and seats, trees, hedgerows and wildflowers. Swansea Council said they would be built in the coming months and that some preparatory work had started. Never miss a Swansea story by signing up to our newsletter here Cllr Sam Bennett, who was elected to represent the waterfront area in 2022 for the first time, said £1 million had been put aside for three new parks years ago and that he had regularly sought updates from the council on behalf of residents in SA1. He said he'd been told work would start at various points from 2022 onwards but that nothing had happened. He said he was assured earlier this year that work would start this May, and that he hadn't seen any sign of it yet. "The situation with the parks in SA1 is simply a disgrace," said the Liberal Democrat councillor. "In the 2022 (council) elections Labour made a big fanfare they had the £1 million for the parks in an effort to persuade the residents of SA1 to vote for them. Three years down the line, and residents still do not have even one park." Article continues below Another view of the land off Langdon Road where one of two new parks will be created (Image: Richard Youle ) Labour council leader Rob Stewart responded by saying Cllr Bennett had been kept fully updated on the plans for two new parks and had indicated in previous meetings he was happy with the progress being made. Cllr Stewart said topsoil had been delivered in preparation for the coming work. "It's therefore disappointing to see the local councillor claim works are not underway," he said. "He knows council officers and the administration are working hard to deliver these as soon as possible." Cllr Stewart said more than £8 million had been spent upgrading or creating new play areas at around 60 sites in Swansea by the Labour-run authority - including the Amy Dillwyn Park by Swansea Building Society Arena - since the Covid pandemic. He said this was many more than in the previous two decades including when the Lib-Dems were in power. Land at the far end of Langdon Road, near the Ibis Hotel, where the second park in SA1 will be created (Image: Richard Youle ) The situation in SA1 goes back to 2018 when the council's planning committee approved a legal agreement with landowner, the Welsh Government, for the council to create three public spaces with a children's play area. Welsh ministers were to provide £1 million for the work. It is understood the council has had the money for around six years, although the pandemic put a stop to many projects. Two sites off Langdon Road are being taken forward for new parks. Cllr Robert Francis-Davies, cabinet member for investment, regeneration, events and tourism, said soil for the new parks was being excavated and reused from places including Singleton Boating Lake. "We're confident that these great new places will be welcomed by residents of SA1 and that locals and visitors alike will work with us to keep the facilities in top shape for years to come," he said. Article continues below
BreakingNews.ie
2 hours ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Sinn Féin calls for vacant council houses to be made available within 12 weeks
Sinn Féin has called for local authorities to be given powers that would see council homes made available to move into within 12 weeks of becoming vacant. New figures show that at least one in every four boarded up council home has been empty for longer than 12 months. Advertisement The figures released to Sinn Féin's Thomas Gould show that 38 per cent of those vacant longer than 12 months have been empty for more than two years. Over 750 council homes across the state have been boarded up for over a year. This is shameful. We must fight back together against FF & FG, demand investment in our communities, and ensure everyone has a safe, secure & affordable place to call home. — Sinn Féin (@sinnfeinireland) June 6, 2025 There are currently more than 750 council homes across Ireland which have been boarded up for more than a year. Mr Gould, the party's spokesman on Urban Regeneration and Renewal, Planning, Public Realm and Local Government, said there are thousands of homes that have been boarded up for three to four years, with some homes lying empty for eight years. Limerick, Wicklow, Tipperary and Louth have council homes boarded up for the longest time periods, while Donegal, Cork City and Limerick have the highest levels of vacant stock. Advertisement Mr Gould said the average re-letting times vary across the state. 'Why are local authorities boarding up houses? When a family moves out, (and) if that house is (in) a decent condition, let's put a family straight in. Let's not board it up. Let's put people in there. 'Instead, it's being boarded up, waiting for the Department of Housing to give money in 12 months' time, and then taking another six months for procurement to do it up. 'We want to get every house returned within 12 weeks. We think 12 gives time for local authorities to repair the house and get them out again. Advertisement 'Local authorities are only getting 11,000 euros for each unit to be turned around, when the average cost last year was 28,000.' He added: 'This is a scandal when we're in the middle of the worst housing crisis in the history of the state, and what we are trying to do is bring forward solutions. 'This in itself won't solve the housing crisis, but what it would do, is could release thousands of homes that would help to house people who are homeless, but also take people out of the rental market. 'So this will have a domino positive effect from homeless services to social housing to rent. Advertisement '(We) want local authorities, rather than waiting for the department to give sanctions, that local authorities would be able to work returning homes all year long, and not just waiting for once or twice a year for the government to give sanctions.' He called for Fianna Fail and Fine Gael to bring in a 'proper procedure' to address long-term vacant homes. Mr Gould said boarded-up houses have 'devastating effects' on communities. 'Families are coming out every day and looking at them, they're magnets for anti social-behaviour, the magnets for dumping,' he added. Advertisement Ireland Department of Foreign Affairs spent almost €1.4m o... Read More 'They just drag down the whole environment of really good communities, and it's about time now the Government stepped up. 'We are bringing forward a solution. We hope the Government will take it on board, because we think it makes sense.' The Department of Housing has been contacted for comment.
NBC News
19 hours ago
- NBC News
Those from the countries on Trump's travel ban say they're confused and angry about what comes next
Anger and condemnation broke out as families, attorneys and immigrant advocates absorbed the blast from the latest bombshell delivered by the Trump immigration — a travel ban that stops or restricts people from 19 mostly African, Asian and Caribbean countries from entering the U.S. While the Trump administration said the travel ban is meant to keep Americans safe, critics lobbed accusations of discrimination, cruelty, racism, inhumanity and more in response. Meanwhile, the news also elicited confusion over what will happen once the ban goes into effect on Monday. "This travel ban is a racist, bigoted and xenophobic and deeply un-American attack on human rights — it's like persecution. We have fled dictatorship, violence, hunger,' Adelys Ferro, executive director of the Venezuelan American Caucus, told NBC News from Miami, a city with a large population of immigrants from several of the countries on Trump's list. 'This administration clearly has something against immigrants, and it has something against us in particular,' said José Antonio Colina, a former Venezuelan army lieutenant who fled to Miami in 2003 and heads the exile organization Veppex. 'We are double-persecuted. We are persecuted by the tyranny of Nicolás Maduro and we are persecuted by the administration of Donald Trump.' A 38-year-old Haitian green-card holder in Miami who was too fearful to allow her name to be used said she and many others in the community feel 'confused and scared' over the travel ban on Haiti. She said most of her family lives there, including her sister and father, who is sick. 'They come all the time to visit and now I don't know if they will be able to,' she said, adding she heard there were exceptions to the ban but wasn't sure. There are some exceptions, including for people with lawful permanent residency, spouses and children of U.S. citizens, those who are adopted and others. 'But if you are a spouse of a permanent resident, forget about it,' said Doug Rand, former director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services during the Biden administration. It will also impact other relatives, such as adult children and siblings of lawful permanent residents, people who won the diversity lottery or were sponsored by a U.S. employer and are from the listed countries, 'people who have been waiting for years and done it the right way,' he said. In Havana, a queue of people outside the American Embassy learned the news of the travel ban and suspensions as they waited for their visa interviews. 'I had been waiting nine years for this moment,' said one young woman in line, who declined to be identified by name for fear it might affect her visa chances. She and others said the suspension means not being able to visit family or escape dire circumstances in Cuba. 'If they don't grant visas, Cubans will starve, given the situation, they will starve,' said Ismael Gainza, a retired Cuban. 'I see that measure as bad, I see it as bad because the situation is tough and we have to survive.' Trump's proclamation issued Wednesday night bans people from 12 countries from traveling to the U.S. The countries are: Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. In seven more countries, travel to the U.S. was suspended but not banned. They are Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. Shahzeen Karim, managing attorney at Hafey & Karim law firm, said that although she's in the immigration law space, she holds 'Republican views' on the topic, agreeing there's a need for a stricter immigration policy and more thorough screening. 'I know the White House presented some explanations as to why each of those countries, but I can't help but feel very targeted, being a Muslim immigration attorney,' Karim said. 'The countries are majority Muslim unfortunately.' Challenging the ban could be 'an uphill battle' Immigration advocates said that, unlike Trump's previous travel ban, which caught them off guard, they expected the president would enact a similar policy in his second term. Trump's 2017 ban immediately barred Muslims from entering the country, leaving some stranded at airports or unable to board flights. But like his previous ban, the impact of the current ban taking effect next week will be felt by people trying to bring together families, those who landed a job in the U.S., who had tours or visits planned, who planned to study here or were looking forward to a cultural exchange. It took three tries for Trump, in his previous administration, to come up with a travel ban that the U.S. Supreme Court would accept. Lower courts nixed the first version and the administration kept revising it until the high court accepted its third version in June 2018. Immigration and civil rights groups opposed all three versions. Raha Wala, vice president of strategy and partnerships at the National Immigration Law Center, said that challenging the latest ban 'will be an uphill battle' because the Supreme Court decision is the law of the land. Edward Cuccia, an immigration attorney in New York City, said that blocking the latest ban could be tougher now than in 2017. 'Trump got smarter this time,' he said, explaining that the mix of countries makes it harder to argue that the ban is discriminatory. Also, the implementation won't be as abrupt and the argument that the singled-out nations do not vet the documents of their citizens well may hold up in court, according to Cuccia. Even so, the implications are vast for the people who are affected and are not a security threat, he said. 'What is this going to mean for family unification? There's a lot of countries here!' Cuccia said. 'And then, there are people that maybe had business dealings, people who wanted to do investments here in the United States or come over on temporary work visas, student visas or even just to visit … That seems to be gone out the window.' Wala called the justification for the ban — that visa overstays present a national security threat and the inability to fully vet visa travelers in those countries — a 'fig leaf.' If there is a gap in vetting, 'that's worth taking a look at,' he said, but added that 'all kinds of people overstay their visas — and just because someone overstayed their visa and committed a crime, we just have to get away from this guilt by association concept.' For Wala, the newly announced ban cannot be separated from the president's previous policies and statements. "This ban started as the president saying he was going to have a complete and total shutdown of Muslims in the country. And he also said he wants to ban folks — and pardon my French here — from s---hole countries," Wala said. In Miami, Colina said he was glad the ban would prevent officials of Maduro's regime in Venezuela and their families "who always find a way" to get a visa to enter the country, "but they are a minority, and the partial ban will negatively impact the larger community and it's not fair.'
