Alex Attwood
West Belfast · Social Democratic and Labour Party · Northern Ireland
“I certainly do not take away from the contribution being made by the judiciary in Northern Ireland to framing a society that upholds the right principles and applies human rights standards across the board without fear or favour. <BR /> <BR />There are two issues with bail. One is police bail, which nobody has commented on so far.”
“Whatever it is, it is a flip-flop. It is trying to cover your tracks. It is having said to people that everything was all right when things were not all right. People saw through it.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. When I was housing Minister in 2010-11, I conducted a fundamental review of the Housing Executive. It was based upon a number of principles, including protecting the institution of the Housing Executive, its legacy and name.”
“What world have you been living in for the last two or three months? <BR /> <BR />That is why Mr Agnew is right to say that there will be anger. There will be anger at the DUP on the day that a public inquiry is established into RHI, belatedly endorsed by Sinn Féin because it had no place else to turn.”
“He accepted a point from me and then said, "Well, actually, since that time the then deputy First Minister has been looking at the matter." Is it not curious that 18 months ago, despite NAMA, despite Red Sky, despite ransom strips — and, for all we know, people might have even known about RHI then — Sinn Féin, despite all that evidence, s…”
“Sorry, apologies. <BR /> <BR />I agree completely with Mr Agnew who said, in his opening remarks, that there was a need for an independent open process to investigate ministerial conduct, not least given recent events, and that there will be public anger if the motion is not passed.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,562 lines we hold for Alex Attwood, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 32.
“What world have you been living in for the last two or three months? <BR /> <BR />That is why Mr Agnew is right to say that there will be anger. There will be anger at the DUP on the day that a public inquiry is established into RHI, belatedly endorsed by Sinn Féin because it had no place else to turn. The DUP says, "Why create issues where none exist?". In a pincer movement, Sinn Féin tries to cover its tracks by saying, "Let us have support for what Steven Agnew, Claire Sugden, the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists all voted for less than 18 months ago." Some people talk straight and some people have not been talking straight. In a short space of time, people will have to make a judgement about whether the future is about those who talk straight and those who do not.”
“Whatever it is, it is a flip-flop. It is trying to cover your tracks. It is having said to people that everything was all right when things were not all right. People saw through it. That is why Sinn Féin is today supporting something that it did not support less than 18 months ago and why, on the other hand, it has rushed to an election. <BR /> <BR />If there is anything worse than that, it is the speech of Pam Cameron, who said during her contribution — in the week that is in it, in the months that are in it, can you believe that this is the approach of the DUP? Why should we have this model: "to create issues where none exist"? She said it is better to have no legislation than bad legislation. Will Pam Cameron explain to people where she sees that we are trying to create issues where none exist?”
“He accepted a point from me and then said, "Well, actually, since that time the then deputy First Minister has been looking at the matter." Is it not curious that 18 months ago, despite NAMA, despite Red Sky, despite ransom strips — and, for all we know, people might have even known about RHI then — Sinn Féin, despite all that evidence, still gave the DUP a soft landing. Is it not the point of this motion — the last motion of this mandate — that 18 months ago, on issues of accountability about Ministers, around Red Sky, ransom strips and NAMA, Sinn Féin gave the DUP a soft landing? When its own constituency told them that was not acceptable, Sinn Féin, in order to catch up, rushed to an election. That is the consequence of its failure 18 months ago.”
“They were so opposed to that proposal that neither the DUP nor Sinn Féin even spoke on the amendment in the debate. There had clearly been a cosy arrangement agreed beforehand that both would oppose the principle — at that stage, it was only a principle — that said that procedures be established for the submission of complaints of breaches of the ministerial code and for the investigation of those complaints. So, less than 18 months ago, the DUP and Sinn Féin opposed that proposal. <BR /> <BR />The curious thing, of course, is the comments of Mr McKay.”
“Sorry, apologies. <BR /> <BR />I agree completely with Mr Agnew who said, in his opening remarks, that there was a need for an independent open process to investigate ministerial conduct, not least given recent events, and that there will be public anger if the motion is not passed. All of that is consistent with the amendments that Mr Agnew and Claire Sugden moved to John McCallister's Opposition Bill not very long ago. <BR /> <BR />I am completely at sea to understand Sinn Féin and the DUP's positions today compared to a short time ago, because, when this very matter arose in the Opposition Bill, Sinn Féin and the DUP opposed the then proposal of Steven Agnew to create an independent mechanism for the investigation of complaints against Ministers.”
“I thank Mr Agnew and the Greens for tabling the motion, which is consistent with the approach that they have adopted. I will come back to that shortly. I agree completely with what Mr Agnew said in his opening remarks. He said that there needed to be an independent open process to investigate ministerial conduct —”
“I concur with the comments of Mr Swann about interference with the inquiry, but I add that there has been a quite transparent attempt by Mr Maskey to create a fog around the fact that this week his party is enthusiastic about a public inquiry and last week was absent without leave from this Chamber on that very issue. Everybody sees through the fog. Given the Minister's proper commitment not to interfere with the conduct of the inquiry, does he agree that under no circumstances under the flawed provisions of the Inquiries Act will there be any reliance in any shape or form on national security, the economic interests of Britain or the economic interests of Northern Ireland to suppress any detail in this welcome inquiry?”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. Is it not more accurate to say that the previous Executive failed to agree a tourism strategy, as have this Executive? We have come out of the Year of Food and Drink; we are four months from the Irish Open in Portstewart; and we are two years from the British Open in Portrush. Is this not evidence of failure? Do you recognise that the 2021 anniversary — 100 years since the creation of Northern Ireland — should also acknowledge the many who regret the partition of Ireland, as well as the many who celebrate the creation of Northern Ireland?”
“I welcome that you have responded to Mr Agnew's question about whether you will support his proposal. How do you reconcile what you are saying now and your commitment to the motion with the way you voted less than 18 months ago, when the exact same proposal came before the Assembly and Sinn Féin and the DUP opposed it? Will you explain why you have changed your mind — I anticipate why — and why you opposed this very proposal less than 18 months ago?”
“— will not be granted bail. That is disproportionate.”
“That means that a suspect in custody for a lesser offence —”
“I have no doubt that the Lord Chief Justice will act on legitimate public concern, but that is what we should allow to happen: a response to legitimate public concern. However, we should not invert the rule of law and bail procedure, as per the part of the motion that says:”
“I certainly do not take away from the contribution being made by the judiciary in Northern Ireland to framing a society that upholds the right principles and applies human rights standards across the board without fear or favour. <BR /> <BR />There are two issues with bail. One is police bail, which nobody has commented on so far. There is a sense that, when somebody is apprehended, they are given police bail too quickly. You can go into parts of west Belfast where the experience of the police and police bail in certain cases has led to a sense in the community that the state does not work on behalf of them or to their benefit. The police have to tighten their processes on police bail in appropriate cases. <BR /> <BR />I am sure that the judiciary can hear this debate, and I am sure that they have heard the criticism.”
“The policing change has slowed down since 2007 — the big great work of policing reform was done between 2002 and 2007 — and I want to see more radical reform when it comes to the criminal justice system, but I do not take away from what has been achieved in both regards.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, there will be cases, in all our experience and in all our communities, that undermine confidence. However, to assert, on the far side of that, that that completely undermines confidence and that the criminal justice system code sees one section of the community getting more lenient trials than the other — that is not based on fact, and we must base our assessments on fact. I agree that there is upset and exasperation around this case, but I do not agree with the extravagance of some people. <BR /> <BR />In my view, the most enduring change since the Good Friday Agreement has been what was achieved in relation to policing and criminal justice.”
“I will shortly. <BR /> <BR />— and criminal justice systems in the way that some of the extravagant language has suggested today.”
“Whilst this case is a bad one and a hard one, and whilst there may be others like it, we should not draw conclusions about the character of the police —”
“<BR /> <BR />There is a danger — we have heard it in one or two comments that have been made in the debate — that, whatever the criticisms may be of the police and the criminal justice system in this case and others, we do extravagant damage to policing and criminal justice. In earlier interventions, there was an exchange that included the phrase that the case completely undermines confidence in the administration of justice. In a separate exchange in the debate earlier, there was a claim that the criminal justice system is weighted in favour of one community over another when it comes to sentencing and bail policy. Those are extravagant claims that are not justified based on the evidence.”
“Mr Speaker, on the very last point that you raised, I do not intend to cross any lines in respect of due process and the rule of law at any time, including in relation to the ongoing proceedings arising from the murder of David Black. I say that for all the reasons of principle but also reasons of humanity. Like other Members in the Chamber, I attended the home of the Black family and the funeral of that prison officer. When you travel down the M1 heading south and west, you pass the place where that murder took place. Given that experience, I certainly will not cross lines in respect of the rule of law and due process, so as to maximise the opportunities for a successful prosecution in that case for anybody who may be involved.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way again. Do you acknowledge that, if we ever get to the point where the Housing Executive can borrow against its stock, the fact that there are now issues and that borrowing from the European Investment Bank will become problematic because of the Brexit decision will impede the Housing Executive's capacity in future to borrow at cheap rates to do the work that you have just referred to?”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. When I was housing Minister in 2010-11, I conducted a fundamental review of the Housing Executive. It was based upon a number of principles, including protecting the institution of the Housing Executive, its legacy and name. One of the intentions behind that fundamental review was to prepare the ground to enable the Housing Executive to borrow from the market. That review concluded in March 2011. It was shared with the then Finance Minister in March 2011. It is now approaching March 2017. Given the preparatory work that was done, which is guarded against the DUP doing damage to the Housing Executive, can you explain why the issue Mr McCann raised repeatedly today about borrowing against Housing Executive assets not been resolved?”
“Mr Speaker, I have to say to you that I do not understand your ruling and how you can reconcile that ruling either with the notice that all of us received in the Chamber or with the Good Friday Agreement, the democratic will of the people of Ireland and our Standing Orders. Consequently, given that you are relying on what you referred to as "legal and procedural advice", I am saying to you, Mr Speaker, that, before this meeting proceeds, you must release, as a matter of urgency and now, the legal and procedural advice that you received, because you need to have your eyes wide open to the consequences in law and politics of what you are proposing.”
“Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.”
“Where do you have the authority, Mr Speaker — where do you have the authority? — to say to the Executive Office to make two statements? You have a duty to explain that to the House, to the people of Northern Ireland and to all those who endorsed the Good Friday Agreement, which established that office.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. To put it moderately, I cannot agree with the last comment that you made. You have said to the House today that you will accept a second statement from a member of the Executive Office or from some other Minister on his behalf. Can you explain to the House how you reconcile that with not just Standing Orders but the Northern Ireland Act and subsequent legislation and the Good Friday Agreement, at the core of which is architecture that states that there shall be a joint office of First Minister and deputy First Minister?”
“Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.”
“You have to explain yourself to the House.”
“So, for all those reasons, the SDLP will not resist or oppose the motion. If that is the argument that is being made in good faith, we accept it.”
“I have only a minute. I normally give way, but I want to conclude my remarks. <BR /> <BR />That is not special consideration that creates some sort of hierarchy; it is a special consideration that is informed by the practice of objective need. If that is all that the covenant is about and, to go back to the point of the last intervention, if it is purely about representation and advocacy, I can understand why the argument has been made by Mr Beattie, Mrs Hale and others that there should be somebody representing Northern Ireland on the covenant reference group.”
“Thank you for that intervention, and thank you for the extra time, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will touch on that in my concluding remarks. <BR /> <BR />It is our view — Naomi Long touched on this in her intervention on Mr Kelly — that the way to deal with any person who has particular requirements is on the basis of objective need. Over many decades, we have developed in Northern Ireland a policy and an architecture in order to ensure that objective need informs how people are responded to at public policy and state level. Maybe Mr Kelly will want to reflect on this: there is, if you like, special consideration for various sections of our society. The people who Mr Kelly speaks for on many occasions — prisoners — are given special consideration by way of funding from Europe. Our victims and survivors are given special consideration by the —”
“I also recognise that there have been many, many people in the British Army who fought in good faith and with sincere beliefs wherever they went around the world over the years, even though I would dispute what the political and military leadership directed them to do. Whilst I may differ with Mr Beattie and other people about the contribution of the British Army around the world, I do not dispute the contribution of individual members of the army to the causes that they believed in. I say that — I have said this before in the Chamber — because my great-uncle, who I am named after, lies in an unmarked grave on the Belgian coast at a place called Nieuwpoort, having been killed in July 1917 in the First World War. I have visited with pride the memorial that bears his name.”
“I also want to acknowledge that, when we are speaking today, we are speaking about people in the Chamber who might have reason to rely on the covenant in terms of their objective needs. So, when we talk about the issue, we have to tread cautiously, because we are treading on the experiences of people in the Chamber and many, many people besides. <BR /> <BR />I have a view about the role of the British Army in Ireland historically and in recent decades. I do not intend to rehearse what that view is, except to say that it became very much a big part of the problem because military and paramilitary approaches were not the way to resolve the conflict of identity around which our conflict revolved.”
“I also respond to Mr Beattie by saying that it was not just the state agencies who brutalised the people whom I represent; the terror organisations also inflicted an unwelcome violence on people across this part of Ireland.”
“First of all, I acknowledge the tone of the remarks of Mr Beattie and Mrs Hale. They struck the right note in relation to the debate and the issues that inevitably revolve around this sort of debate. I also acknowledge, in particular, that I have not heard any senior member of a unionist party refer to the fact that there are people in Northern Ireland, particularly people of the community that I and others represent, who feel, as Mr Beattie put it, "brutalised" by the actions of the British Army. I have not heard that sort of description. In my view, the experience was more than one of feeling that they were brutalised: they were brutalised by the British Army in many, many, many instances over the years. Nonetheless, I acknowledge that that was the tone and character of the debate that we heard.”
“I will. If it transpires that there is a lack of money come February for that inquest, we will be in denial of our international human rights obligations, the court will be denied its opportunity to pursue the inquest, and victims and survivors will be denied the right to truth.”
“<BR /> <BR />In my view, we are not far short of what might well be a lot more turbulence when it comes to the issue of human rights. The reason I say that is that, at the end of February of next year, Mr Justice Colton, the presiding judge in the inquest into the Ballymurphy massacre, will convene the parties. At that stage, he may or may not indicate whether he can move towards an inquest. That inquest is informed by international human rights principles, yet the court may be obstructed from pursuing it because of a lack of money.”
“The PFG must include a child rights indicator framework grounded in UN standards as recommended to the Executive, yet the PFG is silent on that. Worse, when only a matter of weeks ago the Assembly debated child poverty, the DUP motion, supported by Sinn Féin, left out critical words of Seamus Treacy in the judicial review of July of last year when he said that objective need had to be informed by neutral criteria irrespective of affiliation or background and that funding should be based on those neutral criteria. <BR /> <BR />Somehow, the PFG is silent in respect of that critical phrasing, as was the amendment proposed by the DUP and Sinn Féin. So, not only is the PFG lacking in legislative ambition, it is lacking in protecting those hard-won equality and human rights gains of the last 20 or 30 years.”
“Let me give you just one example because I will not have time for more. The PFG is limited and silent not only on what new legislation might be forthcoming on human rights provisions such as Clare Bailey and I have referred to, but what is worrying is how it goes about the issues of equality and anti-poverty. Mr Lynch was right when he indicated that, in developing policy and legal architecture around equality and rights, Northern Ireland, over many decades and through the work of many people who pursued democratic practice when others pursued state violence and terror, created new thresholds. However, too many of those requirements are missing from the PFG. <BR /> <BR />Let me give you one example.”
“<BR /> <BR />The second reason why I think that what is being proposed is moderate is this: what does it mean when it comes to critical areas of Government policy?”
“<BR /> <BR />I welcome that Clare Bailey went through a lot of the thinking of the SDLP, which is also the thinking of the Green Party, in areas like marriage equality, early education and care, homelessness, financial redress for victims of clerical abuse, legislation to address age discrimination, legislation for a bill of rights and an all-Ireland charter of rights and so on and so forth. If there is to be a paradigm shift when it comes to a rights-based approach in this mandate, it will not come from a fairly moderate intervention like the roll-out of human rights action plans, welcome though they are. The paradigm shift will be defined by new legislation across the range of rights requirements that say that we are embedding all that is needed in the life of our politics and the life of our society.”
“First, in its submission to the Programme for Government (PFG) consultation, the SDLP outlined, as a starter, 50 Bills that would define this mandate as being different to any other mandate of the Northern Ireland Assembly or the old Stormont Parliament and that would see a paradigm shift when it came to the legislative ambition and outcomes of this Assembly. As a consequence, 20 of our election proposals were about legislation. So, whilst human rights action plans, if they apply across the lives of all Government Departments — I am sure the DUP will tell us shortly whether they will be — we need new legislation to build into the architecture of these institutions the human rights standards that we require.”
“<BR /> <BR />We are putting on the record our view that when the Brexit turbulence begins to escalate the British Government will barter votes in Westminster for the Human Rights Act. Let them understand that the Human Rights Act is off limits, is binding in international law and is an essential element of the new political dispensation in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />I might have misheard Mr Lynch — if I have, I will stand corrected — but I think he said that the motion was the agreed Executive position in relation to human rights. I might be wrong about that. Whether it is or is not, I am worried about the Executive's position on human rights, and I am worried for the following reasons.”
“That was litigated upon and, if I remember rightly, went all the way to the European authorities. The right decisions were made on where people who preach hate should go. We also have to recognise that the Human Rights Act and international provisions generally have lifted the threshold of human rights protection that we are the beneficiaries of. Whilst there will be cases that excite public concern — in some places, the media agitate public concern — that does not take away from the fact that we live in a better world because of the international provisions provided in Europe, through the UN, and in other ways. If you are making an argument like that, you should step back from it and see the benefit that has come to you and every citizen of Northern Ireland because of the provisions that we have embraced.”
“This is critical, not least given the Supreme Court challenge that started at 11.00 am today. Whilst the Human Rights Act is outwith the European institutions, it is not outwith the Brexit debate and the future shape of our politics. We want to remind the British and Irish Governments on record that there is a binding international treaty between the British and Irish Governments and that the outworking of that binding international treaty is the incorporation into domestic law of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act in particular.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is worth commenting, however, that that perspective has, in our view, been taken forward more by the people in the rest of Ireland than by the Government in Northern Ireland. Look at the citizens' assembly that has recently convened in Dublin; look at the vote of the people of Ireland in relation to equal marriage. They seem to have embraced the argument around the lifelines of human rights. Whilst we differ on some issues about what that should look like, that should be what we embrace too in going forward. <BR /> <BR />Our amendment refers to the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement and the incorporation into domestic law of the Human Rights Act.”
“The last time this sort of issue around human rights protections was debated in the Chamber, I recalled something that had struck me very firmly about 10 or 15 years ago when a book was published in Dublin. It said that the future of the island would be defined less by the bloodlines of ethnicity and more by the lifelines of human rights. That is the perspective that the SDLP takes in relation to this debate and human rights generally. The future of our island — we believe, the future of the wider world — should be defined by the lifelines of human rights and less by the bloodlines of ethnicity. That point, given the turbulence in many parts of the world at the moment where ethnicity or other sectional identity seems to be holding sway, should be the perspective that we have on this issue.”
“I acknowledge that it is for the Minister of Finance to decide whether that should be a written or oral statement, but, given that this is new legislation and a new legislative requirement, I submit, Mr Speaker, that it sets a bad precedent that, on the very first time that this new mechanism is to be deployed, it is deployed by way of a written statement and not by way of an oral statement that is subject to questions by Members.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is on an entirely different matter. This morning, Members received a written statement from the Minister of Finance, as required under the relevant section of the Fresh Start legislation that was passed in Westminster last year. That means that, when there has been a Chancellor's statement in Westminster, the Minister of Finance is obliged to table a statement in the House arising from the budgetary position that applies in Northern Ireland.”
“Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, I would like to confirm that the issue is not who makes any one decision. I welcome the fact that you are delegating responsibility to the Principal Deputy Speaker or Deputy Speakers. Indeed, I acknowledge that you have shown useful latitude in accepting amendments to motions; it has been noted and observed by parties that you show latitude. When it comes to the motion tomorrow, no latitude was shown in interpreting the procedure, and I am surprised by that in that three amendments were submitted representing four of the main political parties in the Assembly. I was seeking some explanation on that and only that.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Clearly, a ruling has been made by the Principal Deputy Speaker on amendments that were submitted in respect of a motion in the Order Paper tomorrow. As the Speaker is aware, the social investment fund has given rise to a lot of public comment and concern. It is a matter that has preoccupied the Assembly and your office, and it now transpires that, when three amendments were submitted that reflect the thinking of four parties in the Chamber, even on a matter as contentious as the social investment fund, none of those amendments was accepted. I am not challenging the ruling by any means but, given the context of the matter and the range of views by way of amendments from four parties, I am seeking a further explanation of why, on this occasion, no amendments were accepted.”