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 10 of 32.
“On previous occasions, his predecessor indicated in the House that there might be a category of person who is subject to the bedroom tax and who might not get mitigation in full for that tax. Then it transpired, and I welcomed this, that there appeared to be more certainty in the point that every citizen who was subject to the bedroom tax would get mitigation in full. Some new doubts have arisen about this, so I ask the Minister to be comprehensive and unambiguous in his reply and to confirm: is it or is it not the case that every tenant who is subject to the bedroom tax will get additional funding for each and every penny of the penalty of that tax? Is that or is that not going to be the case, or is there, even at this late stage, some potential that some tenants will not get mitigation in full?”
“<BR /> <BR />More than that, if there is a reduction from £103 to £73, which is £30 a week and £120 a month, for those relevant qualifying claimants, will they get a penny of mitigation in the new measure that the London Government forced through Westminster by relying on the principle of financial privilege to block the House of Lords? That is the measure of Tory dogma on welfare, and it is the measure of impact that will be upon our citizens. Against that sort of measure, people will need to know whether there will be any penny of mitigation on the far side of the proposals the Minister is making this afternoon. <BR /> <BR />My second question goes back to the bedroom tax. I want the Minister to be unambiguous — absolutely certain and clear — about this question.”
“The legislation going through Westminster, which this Chamber signed off on in November without a moment of oversight at that time or since, is going to result in that sort of impact on the people in this part of Ireland who are in the ESA work-related activity group, unless I am completely wrong. I am asking the Minister to confirm these questions: is that going to be the case for that category of claimant? Will that category of claimant, in any shape or form, be given any protection whatsoever through the proposals that are being tabled today and that will continue until 2020?”
“On two occasions, the House of Lords — that is what we have to rely upon now — blocked proposals by the London Government in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill that will mean a reduction from £103 to £73 a week for people in the ESA work-related activity group. That will apply from April next year for new claimants. <BR /> <BR />Will the package that the Minister is proposing this afternoon have any impact on any of those people in the work-related activity group, who, on the far side of this legislation, will see their ESA reduced from £103 to £73 a week? That is my question to the Minister, and very relevant it is to the proposals he is making this afternoon. In that answer from the Minister, which I await with interest, will the narrative on all this become clear?”
“Respecting your ruling, Mr Speaker, this is how what I have just said comes right back to the proposals that are being brought by the Minister to this Chamber. I have a question for the Minister on what he is proposing, given what is happening to people in the work-related activity group on ESA. As the Minister is aware, within the last two weeks, the London Government invoked what they refer to as the rule of financial privilege to block House of Lords proposals to resist the reduction of employment and support allowance for people in the work-related activity group from £103 to £73 a week.”
“In a second. How dare anyone say to anyone in our community that we have lessened the burden of an unfettered Tory Government when we gave power to an unfettered Tory Government to do their worst? You cannot reconcile those comments. How dare anyone in this Chamber say that no one approved that Tory mandate? No, we did not approve that mandate. We did something worse; we gave the Tories their mandate by handing them the power to legislate on welfare in Northern Ireland. I will give way.”
“Inasmuch as there is £500 million-plus going into mitigation, that is true, but it is not true to claim in the House that we have lessened the burden of an unfettered Tory Government when this Assembly, last November, handed to an unfettered Tory Government the ability to make law on welfare for this part of the world. How dare anyone say to anyone in our community —”
“For all those reasons, given London Treasury ambitions and where the economy in Britain and Northern Ireland is, we may well have more pain to swallow beyond what is announced this week. Remember that, whilst the Chancellor wants to pretend that it only means a cut of 50p in every £100, he deliberately neglects to tell everybody that, because certain areas of revenue and budget are protected, that 50p works out at a lot more for those areas that are not protected. In all that you can see a sleight of hand by the Chancellor to hide the true intentions behind what we will discover by the end of this week. <BR /> <BR />It is utterly remarkable that anybody in this Chamber could say, as a consequence of the mitigation:”
“<BR /> <BR />Given that the Chancellor got it so wrong six months ago, is it not possible, indeed likely, that he will get his call wrong this week as well on where the economy in Britain and Northern Ireland is going? Is there not a possibility that, six months from this week, whoever is in the Chamber will be back again, discussing the next measure that the Chancellor wishes to propose in respect of further budgetary cuts?”
“<BR /> <BR />You have only to read the commentaries over the weekend in advance of the Budget this week to get a sense of where London is positioning itself so soon after the Budget statement. The speculation over the weekend was that the Chancellor would propose in this week's Budget to save £1·2 billion by reforming personal independence payments to the detriment of over 600,000 disabled people. So, having been given false reassurances in the autumn statement, five or six months later we learn of the next phase of welfare reform and welfare cuts that may work itself across the Irish Sea and into the lives and homes of people here.”
“I concur with all the comments made by other Members about the work undertaken by Professor Eileen Evason and her team. I spoke to her and other members of the team, and they were working to a very tight time frame and in very heated circumstances over the Christmas period. The work undertaken by her in particular and by her colleagues in general was mighty. <BR /> <BR />In one way it is appropriate that, in the very last hours of this mandate, we go back to the issues that have, in some ways, defined this mandate, namely need, welfare dogma, the authority of the Assembly in those matters, and the outcomes that we have reached. It is appropriate to come back to those because, and I say this rather guardedly, we have not seen the half of it. Even if that is not the case, there is certainly more to come.”
“I, too, wish the Minister well in the future. Can you, Minister, outline how the glaring deficits in mental health support for prisoners are going to be rectified? That was a matter highlighted by the CJI report. Touching upon the earlier question, are you not concerned that, after years of reform and oversight, there still seems to be a stream within the Prison Service that sees the role of prison to be, first, last and only, the punishment of the prisoner?”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. He will understand the despair that exists among so many teachers who have been qualified for three years and more that they are not going to have access to the 500 teaching opportunities that the Minister referred to. I think a model could be developed that could be more inclusive. Independently of that, has the Minister sought legal advice? Is he prepared to share it with the Assembly, or at least to share with the Assembly the broad content of that legal advice in terms of equality and human rights implications?”
“While we acknowledge that the media have a responsibility to report the good news, they also have a responsibility to report the bad news and should not be subject to the aggression and hostility that we have seen over the past 24 hours.”
“I thank the Member for his kind comments about me.”
“On a point of order, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker.”
“I think this is one of those occasions, so, save for the Minister's reply, I concur with all the comments that have been made by other Members.”
“I think it was yesterday that Mr McCartney, I think, quoted Mr Kennedy as saying:”
“It was not my quote but that of Robert Kennedy.”
“<BR /> <BR />In taking forward a proper measure of reform in order to test the temper of this House on the far side of the mandate in respect of various matters, as well as creating the formal structures for opposition and the responsibilities of opposition that Mr McCallister outlined in his opening speech, we think that that is a good measure of reform, done with a fair bit of wisdom but not straying beyond the necessary protections and architecture of the Good Friday Agreement, which, even though politics has not served it well, has served the people of Northern Ireland well.”
“We were concerned that, in some of the discussions that we had with Mr McCallister and some of the amendments that are coming before the House, there was a danger that we would throw out the baby with the bathwater; that the necessary architecture of the Good Friday Agreement, given our bitter experience of politics and life in this part of Ireland for so many years, could all somehow too quickly be put in jeopardy, and that the baby of the structures of the Good Friday Agreement, the principle of inclusion and the protections for people would somehow too quickly be put in jeopardy. That is why, rightly, in my view, those matters were opposed, up to and including a petition of concern.”
“Without going further, because I probably will be going on the wrong side of the Deputy Speaker's ruling, you know what I am talking about: we will all, as Ministers or Members, have to commit unequivocally in word and deed to support the efforts of the rule of law in this part of Ireland. <BR /> <BR />I recognise the elements of the Bill that have got through.”
“People should judge the LCM on the merits of the arguments that are being presented in that regard, but it does not take away from the fact that this Bill has been subject to very rigorous interrogation, yet other matters are being subjected to minimum interrogation in this place. Yet, all Members who aspire to be returned here and any other person who may be elected here on the far side of this mandate will, when they sign up to membership of this House, have to commit to a new oath. I hope that they do commit to that new oath, because it is meant to mean that in word and deed, unequivocally, every Member of the House upholds the rule of law.”
“A minimum amount time and reference to this Chamber is ongoing in respect of its contents. At the moment, in Westminster, we have a piece of legislation that will govern the Programme for Government of this place, the ministerial oath, the commitments that are made by MLAs and our Budget processes, yet for all the time that was rightly invested in shaping the Bill up to Final Stage, there is virtually little reference to all that work in Westminster to the membership who will be responsible and will have to subscribe to these new ways of doing business. <BR /> <BR />Before we leave this Chamber for purdah in two or three weeks, people will be asked to endorse some of that approach through a legislative consent motion (LCM).”
“I note of course that it should be the aspiration of all parties — and I presume that it will be the aspiration of all parties — to go into a Government in order to have the responsibility to more critically shape the society and the new order of politics that were born with the Good Friday Agreement. <BR /> <BR />There is of course a slight contradiction or tension between all the hours that were invested in the Bill through the consultation, the work of the Committee, the various stages on the Floor of the House and all the amendments — all that effort and the endless hours undertaking that work in order to bring about measures to reform how this place operates — and the legislation that is going through Westminster at this very moment that is also about reform of this place and how it operates.”
“Given that sentiment and the DNA of the SDLP, consistent with the democratic structures that were endorsed by the people of Ireland in the Good Friday Agreement, we recognise that creating a place called opposition or a place for more formal dissent in the Chamber is actually healthy for our democracy. Whether any party that is entitled to Government office on the far side of this mandate chooses that office or not, and whether all who may be entitled under democratic mandate to go into a Government do so and nobody chooses to take up the place called opposition, as Mr McCallister refers to it, this place and our politics will be better for the fact that there is nonetheless that place for dissent, constructive opposition or whatever words you might want to use to describe it.”
“Then, through years of democratic struggle, the SDLP, its constituency and all like-minded people on this island in particular, went about, through democratic struggle, shaping that dissent into political platforms and programmes, which, eventually, were captured in not just the Good Friday Agreement but many interventions that shaped our society in ways that were different from the past, be it in policing, housing, human rights and all the rest.”
“<BR /> <BR />An American politician once said that he demanded the right to dissent because there was much to dissent from. The SDLP as a political party was born of democratic dissent. That is part of the DNA of the SDLP. At a time when the powers that be, who were in this Building and who managed this part of Ireland, resisted the democratic dissent of people, the SDLP was born of that democratic dissent, because much was wrong in our society that needed to be remedied.”
“Taking up Mr Sheehan's last point, I place on record my acknowledgement of the assistance of the Bill Office during the passage of this legislation. As I have said before, there is a particular burden on the Bill Office in the frenzy of business that is before the House in the last days of the mandate. My experience and, I am sure, the experience of all parties and Members, is that it has more than measured up to that responsibility. Similarly, I acknowledge John McCallister, who was right to take time and, indeed, some pleasure, given the tone of his contribution, to scope out the contents of the Bill, as is, before the House. That represents and reflects Mr McCallister's achievement as sponsor of the Bill all those months and years ago. I very much wish to place that on record in respect of the Bill Office and the sponsor.”
“Does the deputy First Minister agree that the fact that the Prime Minister was in Northern Ireland at the weekend demonstrates that the votes of people in Northern Ireland will be critical come the June referendum? In that regard, as things stand, it seems that many farmers, many in small and medium-sized enterprises, many in the CBI and many in the community and voluntary sector — indeed, a critical mass of people in Northern Ireland — are very clearly in favour of staying in Europe.”
“The CBI, our hospitality industry, people from the food and drink sector who were in the Building today and all those who trade with Europe — none of whom you referred to — will not be impressed by your enthusiastic endorsement of Brexit. <BR /> <BR />My question on the A5 was this: on the basis that the public inquiry will not start until the autumn and given the length of such things, the risk of legal challenge and the fact that, on the far side of it, the Minister will have to decide whether the A5 proceeds, how can you say to the House, in this financial year, that a budget line of £12 million or £13 million will be spent? That is unfortunate, but is that not the reality?”
“When can the NCA and the PSNI anticipate that the additional money from London or from the Executive might be made available?”
“I am not taking away from all the worthy comments that the Minister made about skills; I acknowledge them. For all the apparent ambition of the A5 and A6 moneys over the next four years, that is the scale of where we have come from, and that is the scale of the response that is needed. This is not £40 million, and this is not putting in doubt any moneys for the A5, even in year 1. <BR /> <BR />The final point I want to make is this: where are we with the new funding for the NCA and the PSNI? Moneys were committed through Fresh Start — £160 million for national security and for tackling paramilitary and criminal activity and an additional £5 million from London and £5 million for each of the next five years from the Northern Ireland Executive. Has one penny of the latter Budget line gone to the PSNI and the NCA to date?”
“If you look at the figures for Invest Northern Ireland for the four Belfast constituencies on inward visits and jobs created, you will see a parallel to what has happened overall east and west of Northern Ireland. In West Belfast, the inward visits from Invest over the last three years were nine, 14 and 13 respectively; yet, in South Belfast, they were 63, 87 and 61 respectively; and, in East Belfast, they were 53, 56 and 24 respectively. I think those figures tell the story not just about how there has been a new economic partition of the North and how that needs to be radically rectified but that, even within Belfast, there is partition within the constituencies, with a concentration in South and East Belfast and no spread in North and West.”
“There is no issue about jobs being created everywhere, but, at the same time, when you see the profile of jobs created and jobs promoted, you see that that approach and pattern could be compounded by the fact that there is now a growing infrastructure in the east and there is yet to be a growing roads infrastructure in the west. You can imagine why I would conclude that we are witnessing the new economic partition of Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />You also see it in Belfast. There has been further economic partition of the city of Belfast. Every citizen and constituency should have all support and efforts to get people into work and sustainable jobs. There is no issue with that.”
“The infrastructure and investment should have been more fully and properly spread across all its citizens, counties and communities. We are going to live with the legacy of the new economic partition of Northern Ireland because, when FDI comes, companies will look to skills and infrastructure. Unfortunately, the infrastructure will be lacking in places that need the lift in relation to all that. <BR /> <BR />Why do they need the lift? They need it because the record of job creation during 2011-15 is that 73·4% of jobs created were in the area east of the Bann and 26·6% were in the west. Of the jobs promoted, 73·7% — 27,116 — were promoted in the east, and 9,679 were promoted in the west. Every citizen who lives in Northern Ireland should have access to a job.”
“If you look at it, you see that, whilst there was a big need to improve road structures in the east of Northern Ireland, that is where all the big road spending has been in this mandate. The Minister will know about the road that is being built from Ballymoney to Ballymena. A road is being built from Larne to Glengormley. The road from Carrickfergus to Jordanstown is now open. <BR /> <BR />The infrastructure that, with corporation tax, will be part of the architecture to benefit FDI coming has been concentrated in the east. Those roads are necessary for the people and communities of the east, but, at the same time, if the A5 and the A6 are not done — there may even be a question mark over commitments on the A5 in year one — we will have seen the further economic partition of Northern Ireland in the lifetime of this Government.”
“His argument was that we will invest in skills in order to maximise the benefit of FDI in two years, but, as the experience of the rest of Ireland and other places demonstrates, it is the triangulation of corporation tax, skills and infrastructure that sustains FDI. It is all three. That is why the Minister rightly referred to investment in skills, but I put it to him that, given what I have just said about the A5 and the long lead-in time in respect of the A5 and the A6, infrastructure in the west will not necessarily be scaled up in order to maximise the corporation tax reduction coming in 2018. <BR /> <BR />This is the point that I want to make to the Minister, and it is a serious point: over this mandate, we have seen the further economic partition of Northern Ireland. That is demonstrated by the spend on roads.”
“Are you going to give it back to me? I have some other projects that I'm going to talk to you about now". It is a serious point. The Minister's predecessor outlined the spending profile over five years for the A5 and the A6, yet the spending profile for the A5 might be very problematic in year 1. You might want to address all of that when you come to your reply. <BR /> <BR />The second-last point is this: the big, if you like, material point in the Minister's contribution at the beginning of the debate was corporation tax. It was quite a short speech — I would not have expected it necessarily to be any more than that — but that was the big material point.”
“No doubt a lot of that large budget pot might be spent on advance work, architects, engineers, quantity surveyors, consultants and all the rest of it. I do not think many people will be too impressed if the first £13·2 million of the budget line goes on professional fees. What is the situation in respect of that money? <BR /> <BR />I am mindful, of course, that Mr McGuinness has nailed his colours to the mast, as he said himself, in this regard. In autumn last year, he said that he had every expectation that the work would start in just over a year. Unfortunately, I do not see how it can start in just over a year from the autumn of last year, but I would like the Minister to confirm whether he has ambitions around that £13·2 million. Will he say to the Minister for Regional Development, "You're not going to spend any of that.”
“If the Minister were to put on just his finance cap, I think that he might be jumping up and down thinking, "In June monitoring, there's a big sum of money coming from DRD because it's not going to be able to spend it". Will the Minister reconcile that £13·2 million budget allocation for the A5 with what his ministerial colleague said yesterday about the public inquiry not starting until the autumn and the likelihood, therefore, that it would be late in the financial year before a decision could be taken, never mind any work commenced? I presume that the DFP requirement is that you cannot build at risk on a project of this scale. You will have to enter into a tendering process with all of the contractors for all the building. That would suggest to me that the chances of something being built in 2016-17 are declining.”
“The Minister for Regional Development said, yesterday, in relation to the budget allocation in the Budget Bill of £13·2 million for the A5, that she might tentatively anticipate a public inquiry into the A5 in autumn 2016. I have a little knowledge in respect of planning. If that is the case, the public inquiry, never mind the planning permission, is not likely to be issued until late in the 2016-17 financial year at best, yet the budget allocation is £13·2 million for the financial year. Will the Minister indicate how it is anticipated that £13·2 million of funding will be spent if the public inquiry will not commence until the autumn and probably will not be concluded until 2017, by which stage it will go to the Minister for a decision, very late in the financial year?”
“I refer to the Written Ministerial Statement by the Minister's predecessor on Thursday 17 December, which outlined various financial interventions, including seven flagship projects at table 4 in the statement. There is only one that I want to deal with for the purposes of this debate, and that is the A5. The DRD table attached, which is therefore part of the Budget Bill, says that the financial allocation for 2016-17 for the A5 is £13·2 million. Whilst that does not build a road and whilst there have been false and broken promises in the past, that was, nonetheless, the declared figure. How does the Minister view the comments made by the Minister for Regional Development in the Chamber yesterday at Question Time, when she said that there were ongoing consultations in respect of the A5 and added that the current consultation:”
“It was spotted by Mark Durkan and was not denied by the Minister. They are looking for more. What will more look like? We can all speculate. If you look at the agenda of the Tory Government, with the sale of ports, more charging for water, more penalties and more financial constraints on our councils, you can see that they are coming back for a lot more. The commitments entered into for 2018 mean that there is a very tight time frame for proper negotiation with London rather than stand-and-deliver politics from London.”
“That date is now April 2018. They said that commencement was subject to subsequent reform measures and that those commitments must be agreed with the British Government. Minister, if you are drawing the conclusion that what we have done for the British Government satisfies the threshold of balanced and sustainable finances, I urge you to think again. The words I have quoted have more impact that your interpretation gives them. The words in paragraph 4.2 on page 27 of the Fresh Start Agreement have more impact than your interpretation gives them, and the clause in respect of draft Budgets has more impact than your interpretation gives it. In any case, they will demand their piece of flesh in order to switch on power. That is what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was getting at in Committee on the Corporation Tax Bill.”
“You just referred to that, but then they added, "and subsequent reform measures". What are the subsequent reform measures? What are they driving at? Remember that they said:”
“They were not talking about what was agreed at Stormont House on voluntary exit and so on and so forth. They had bigger ambitions, and those are captured in the words that they use. They were clever. The words were:”
“I thank the Minister for that contribution. That benign attitude to the ambitions of Treasury may be very touching, but it may come back in our faces. We are two years from when the devolution of corporation tax is meant to happen. For all the commentary that you have given about balanced and sustainable budgets, I am sure that London are clapping their hands in delight: they had the measure, by and large, of the Northern Ireland Government and the Northern Ireland parties in the financial negotiations in December 2014. That is widely recognised. The issue is whether they have the measure of the Department of Finance and the Executive in the run-up to the devolution of corporation tax. <BR /> <BR />I remind the Minister of the term "subsequent reform measures".”
“What could be the consequences of that draft Budget clause in the Bill tabled and discussed in Westminster yesterday as regards doing it on their terms? Remember that this is two years away, and this is what London is creating. <BR /> <BR />Remember what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said when the Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland) Bill was in Committee at Westminster in the early part of last year. He said that the switch-on power for corporation tax would be when a balanced and sustainable Budget was agreed, and he did not rule out what Mark Durkan identified as a stick approach. Will the Minister indicate, in his reply, where his conversations with London are in respect of the detail of the devolution of corporation tax powers?”
“That is what London said on corporation tax in December 2014. Look at what they said in 'A Fresh Start' about creating new financial disciplines in respect of Budgets for Northern Ireland and the establishment of a fiscal council. London told the Northern Ireland Executive that the terms of reference and membership of a fiscal council, which is meant to guide this Minister in respect of all his Budgets, have to be agreed with London. <BR /> <BR />I put it to the Minister that London is closing the circle. They will do corporation tax on their terms and not just on those that we think are most favourable. When London says that the delivery of commitments must be agreed with the London Government, including efficiency measures to put finances on a sustainable basis for the future, what are they getting at?”