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 11 of 32.
“The Minister, in his opening remarks, understandably spoke with some extravagance about the opportunities that would come with corporation tax powers, but does he have any anxiety that that which will be legislated for in London will be used as a weapon when it comes to the conditions that London will demand only two years from now when it comes to the devolution of corporation tax powers? <BR /> <BR />Let me be more specific. In the Stormont House Agreement, the last section of the annex on financial matters deals with corporation tax. What strikes you about what ends up being five or six paragraphs in that document is the insistence in the language about the terms under which corporation tax powers will be devolved. Devolution of corporation tax — this is London talking — will be:”
“Are they technicalities, or are they policy decisions that will hit the pockets of many people in this part of Ireland? I wait to hear the Minister's reply. <BR /> <BR />The Minister spoke at some length in his opening remarks about corporation tax and the announcement of £40 million for skills. I certainly welcome that. However, there are two questions that arise from that assessment. The first refers to the new Budget discipline that arises from clause 9 of the Northern Ireland (Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan) Bill that is going through Westminster. Minister, do you have any anxieties that that clause is among other weapons that will be relied on by London to get their way when it comes to the devolution of corporation tax powers?”
“Does the mitigation fund referred to in the Budget Bill do anything to mitigate the proposal that was defeated by the House of Lords only two weeks ago, after commoners in this Chamber — in the DUP and Sinn Féin — voted to allow reductions in ESA by £30 a week, arising from the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, that are a consequence of the LCM that the DUP and Sinn Féin endorsed in November? Does the mitigation fund do anything for those who might suffer the benefits freeze, who might have to live with the consequences of a reduction in the benefit caps or for those who will see £30 ripped from their pockets when ESA might be reduced in future years? I ask the Minister to explicitly say whether he considers all the proposals to be, as Martin McGuinness called them in the Chamber in December, "technicalities"?”
“I ask the Minister this: does the mitigation fund referred to in the Budget Bill and arising from Fresh Start in any shape or form — even by one penny — have any impact on the unilateral decision of a British Minister to reduce the benefits cap below £20,000, if that is what happens over the next four years, as a consequence of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill going through Westminster, which the DUP and Sinn Féin signed up to when they agreed to the LCM that was passed by this Chamber in November?”
“I have one or two questions that I want to ask the Minister in that regard. The first is simply this: do any of the mitigation moneys referred to in the Budget Bill, in the schedule that I have just read from, in any shape or form mitigate the benefit freezes that will be imposed on people in Northern Ireland from 2016 until 2020 arising from the LCM that was passed by the DUP and Sinn Féin in November? Do the mitigation moneys in any shape or form — even by one penny — mitigate the benefit freezes that the DUP and Sinn Féin signed up to when they endorsed the social security provisions of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill that is going through Westminster by passing the LCM?”
“I move on to my third point. In schedule 1 to the Budget Bill that some in the Assembly will approve tonight, at pages 10 and 11 on the DSD allocations, there is reference to:”
“What is that all about? Is it simply a statement that the London Treasury does not trust the Northern Ireland Executive? It may claim that it has some grounds for not doing so. What else might be behind it? If it is simply saying, "Let's have an annual Budget process", that is a good idea, but is London, through the back door, trying to create a Budget cap for Northern Ireland, just as we have a welfare cap? Will they then impose disciplines on us if they think that we are out of order or in error? I ask the Minister to answer those questions, although I will come back to the issue in a fourth point.”
“Paragraph 4.2 on page 27 of that document states:”
“That is what that legislation states. Is the Finance and Personnel Committee, in its overhaul of existing processes, barking up the wrong tree? There will be a requirement to lay an annual statement on what we are getting from London, which is predicated on an annual Budget. Will we have more of the folly of multi-year Budgets or the annual Budget process that the Good Friday Agreement allowed us to have in 1998? It is a very important question. <BR /> <BR />There is, of course, another question: why do Fresh Start and the Westminster legislation now require that? When DFP officials came to the OFMDFM Committee, they said that it simply put into law what was already the case for control totals. Why, then, have the London Government put into law something that they borrowed from the so-called 'Fresh Start Agreement'?”
“That will be a legal obligation on this Minister, if he continues in post, and he may have earned some stars in that regard. The question that arises is this: where is the draft Budget for a financial year? Mr McKay just talked about the Executive agreeing "the next multi-year Budget". Are we now to have an annual budgetary process — in my view, we need one — like in Dublin, Cardiff, London and Edinburgh? That is what clause 9 says. <BR /> <BR />The Westminster legislation says that, every year, you have to lay a draft Budget for a financial year and that, 14 days before you do so, you must table a statement specifying the amount of UK funding for that year. So will we now have the annual budgetary process that we should always have had, even though Peter Robinson said in 2008 that he had legal advice to derail that proposition?”
“Although it has not been discussed in this Chamber, the House is expected, before the end of this mandate, to pass a legislative consent motion agreeing to it. We will agree to it, but I want to know what the consequences will be. <BR /> <BR />Clause 9(2)(1A) of the Bill before Westminster states:”
“That is what Mr McKay said. <BR /> <BR />My second question to the Minister is this: what is the significance of the legislation debated in Westminster yesterday, which purports to implement the Stormont House Agreement and Fresh Start and has clauses that relate to the Budget processes in Northern Ireland? <BR /> <BR />I refer the Minister to clause 9 of the Northern Ireland (Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan) Bill, which had its Second Reading in the House of Commons yesterday. He will be aware of it, even if all of us are not. Clause 9 refers to draft Budgets and proposes to amend section 64 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Remember that this has never been discussed in the Chamber; it emerged, somehow or other, in Fresh Start, and I will refer to that in a minute.”
“So my first question to the Minister is this: where do you stand, and what is your advice, given the growing number of voices in Northern Ireland from outside this place that are in favour of membership of the European Union? That is a fair question, because it is based on the detail of the Budget Bill. <BR /> <BR />I thank the Chair of the Finance Committee, because I was not aware that it is interrogating processes for a review of budgets and the Budget management process. In particular, there is this work on a potential overhaul of existing processes and front-loading them:”
“<BR /> <BR />In the week that is in it, the Finance Minister should be clear with the Assembly, with the Confederation of British Industry and with the people from the food and drinks industry who were in the Building today launching their manifesto on the growth of that sector. The Minister, who has a particular responsibility for the overall finances of the Northern Ireland Executive, should tell us what his advice is to all those organisations and to people beyond, and whether he will be voting for or against membership of the European Union come May. That is a fair question, because, on the one hand, we are saying today in this Budget Bill, "Thank you very much, Europe, for Peace funds, structural funds and community initiative funds", yet, on the other hand, we can slap them in the face come May.”
“<BR /> <BR />The first issue that I want to speak to the Minister about is that if you look at the Budget Bill, you will see that, on virtually every page and in virtually every Department — save, as far as I could see, maybe the Department of Justice and DCAL, and, even there, I think the argument that I am about to make applies — there are streams of European Union funding that sustain the life of those Departments. It is on every page of the Bill, and every Budget Estimate that we are meant to approve today is approved on the basis of streams of European Union funding.”
“Maybe people over there do not want to hear some messages, but, given what Mr McKay has just said on behalf of the Committee, some of my points will be very relevant to what the Committee is looking at in terms of Budget processes. Perhaps sometimes people should listen more attentively. <BR /> <BR />I want to make it clear that, whilst there was some hint previously that I thought that DSD and even the Social Development Minister were an outreach of DWP, nothing that I am saying is meant to suggest, in any shape or form, that I consider DFP or the Finance Minister to be an outreach of the Treasury, even though, as I will outline, there are signs to the contrary.”
“I hope that the Minister was not referring to me when he made his opening remarks, but we will see over the next few minutes whether or not he was. <BR /> <BR />I want to make very clear in the remarks that I want to make — there are six or seven points that I want to pick up with the Minister —”
“Ultimately, none of this means anything unless the Programme for Government and the policies pursued by a smaller number of MLAs and Departments live up to the ambitions of those in the Long Gallery and people everywhere. Noting those comments, this is the right option and the right time for this measure of reform, but let us not elevate it to something that is major reform, unless it measures up to what reform is meant to serve, and that is the interests of the people we all represent.”
“The number of MLAs, the number of Departments and having an opposition do not do one whit of anything to respond to the needs of that NGO in trying to shape health in a different image from the past. What was useful, I thought, was that a senior official from OFMDFM, which has responsibility, in part, for the Programme for Government, was at the meeting, which might indicate some fresh thinking on how to take forward health issues. <BR /> <BR />Structures do nothing to respond to those needs, unless they are then seen to respond to them. That is the measure of all reform. It is not about reform for the sake of reform or for the aspiration of efficiency and effectiveness; it is about reform in order to more fully and faithfully respond to the needs of the people who were in the Long Gallery earlier today.”
“She also said that it is a major step forward on reform. Yes, this is a step in the right direction, and, yes, it is reform, but I would be more moderate in the language that describes what is happening today. <BR /> <BR />I acknowledge that, even if it is a DUP wish list, as Mr Frew indicated, there is an ongoing range of reform measures on the number of Departments, the number of MLAs and the legislation in respect of an opposition. None of that, however, answers the questions that were being tabled over lunchtime in the Long Gallery by one of the community health NGOs, which was making an argument about how the Programme for Government should be shaped in the image of community health responses to health needs in our society.”
“I, too, welcome the Final Stage of this legislation. I would be more moderate in my language than that which was used by the junior Minister, who said:”
“I ask the Minister to clarify a point he made in his opening answer, when he said, as I understand it, that it was anticipated that some people — some claimants— who had suffered conflict-related injuries would migrate across to PIP. It has always been the assumption, Minister, that the vast majority of people migrating across to PIP with conflict-related injuries would do so. Are you now sending a message to victims and survivors that it will be a smaller, rather than a larger, number of those with conflict-related injuries who will migrate to PIP than was believed to be the case heretofore?”
“By doing so, they can create further mechanisms for motions to come forward to the Chamber in relation to those matters identified in the schedule. I encourage Members to support that mechanism for bringing about further reform of the Assembly in future.”
“We listened closely to what Mr Agnew and his colleague had to say in relation to his schedule about breaches of the ministerial code, because, let us be frank, this Chamber has not covered itself in glory when it comes to claimed breaches of the ministerial code. Without going into detail, Ministers have escaped proper remedy, censure or intervention by the Assembly because people have not thought independently and objectively about the failure of Ministers to live up to the ministerial code. We listened closely to what has been said in that regard. <BR /> <BR />Finally, I ask Members to support amendment No 13, tabled by the SDLP. As the Deputy Speaker indicated, amendment Nos 11 and 13 are mutually exclusive. Members can, therefore, pass amendment No 11 and amendment No 13.”
“It might be useful to test the waters in a moderate way through the amendments proposed by Mr McCallister, both on the presiding officer and in respect of the issue of the PFG.”
“We also do it in order to encourage a debate about the role and authority of the presiding officer or Speaker. We think that there is time and place to have a wider conversation about that issue and all the principles that were articulated in an earlier amendment from Mr McCallister in relation to the nomination of a Speaker and, thereafter, how a Speaker would conduct his affairs and whether the Speaker or presiding officer would stand for election in the future. On this occasion, we are minded to support amendment No 11 in order to test the waters. <BR /> <BR />We are not anxious about further powers being transferred to the Assembly or for mechanisms to be created whereby, in the fullness of time, the powers, role or character of devolution might be enhanced.”
“I do not know the position of Sinn Féin on it. Ms Bradley said that she would oppose amendment Nos 8 and 10. Surely those amendments, especially amendment No 10, are a minimum intervention to serve the interests of everybody, including Ms Bradley, and I urge that the DUP to consider that further. <BR /> <BR />We listened closely to what the proposer of amendment No 11 said about the transfer of responsibilities. It brings me to make this point: the SDLP is minded to support the proposals tabled by Mr McCallister in respect of the change from excepted to reserved matters. We do that in a quite delicate way; we restrict it to the issue of the Programme for Government, even though that matter is already, in one way, addressed by the legislation that is about to be tabled in Westminster arising from A Fresh Start.”
“We support amendment Nos 8 and 10, both for the entitlements on the Floor of the opposition leader and deputy leader but, more crucially even than that, a review of the support for private Member's bills, as proposed by Mr Allister. This is a minimum amendment. It calls for a review on an occasional basis. It does no violence to anybody in the Chamber; in fact, it serves the interests of all parties and all private Members to have an occasional review about what support is necessary for private Members bringing forward a private Member's Bill. The character of devolution, in many instances, has been defined by the character and quality of private Member's Bills. I look behind me to people who have sponsored such legislation, and Northern Ireland is a better place because of it. Therefore, I ask Members to support that.”
“In respect of amendment No 4, tabled by Mr McCallister, subject to what we hear in the debate, we are inclined to support it and amendment No 5 in relation to the timeline for the formation of an opposition. That is in the event that any opposition is formed because, whilst there may be a statutory provision further to the passage of this legislation for that to happen, there is no presumption that there will be an opposition. It may be that those parties entitled under democratic mandate and the d'Hondt principle to take up their entitlements in the Executive will do so. I am sure that that is the intention of all parties going into the election. <BR /> <BR />I will not speak on amendment No 6 because I do not intend to move it. We are against amendment No 7 in respect of the removal of the "Deputy Leader" reference.”
“Amendment No 26. I thank the Member behind me. Amendment No 26 reintroduces the d'Hondt principle for the nomination of all other Ministers, per the provisions of the Northern Ireland Act and the Good Friday Agreement. On the bespoke arrangement that the SDLP opposed and that was introduced to the House further to legislation in 2010 whereby the election of the Justice Minister was to be by a cross-community vote, we think that we are in a place and in a phase of politics where we should revert to the proposals that were in the Northern Ireland Act governing the nomination of all Ministers. <BR /> <BR />I will now touch on all the other amendments, including other amendments in the SDLP's name.”
“I stand corrected on that and correct the record, but the appropriate amendment, which the Member knows, even if I do not know its correct number —”
“<BR /> <BR />We think that it is time now, nine years since that was undone at St Andrews and by the subsequent St Andrews Act, to revert back to the processes that were in place further to the agreement and the Northern Ireland Act, and to reverse from the process of the St Andrews negotiations and the St Andrews Act, whereby there was a process of nomination by envelope, rather than election under the rules of the Assembly prior to that time. I urge Members to consider whether this is not the time and place to return to that mechanism. <BR /> <BR />Similarly, amendment No 36, again reverts to the d'Hondt principle, laid down in section 18 of the Northern Ireland Act —”
“<BR /> <BR />I now move to paragraph 3 in the schedule, which is a very simple proposal to revert to the process that governed the election of the First Minister and deputy First Minister further to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the Good Friday Agreement. That required of the Assembly a procedure to elect, in this Chamber, the First Minister and deputy First Minister by a majority of Unionists voting and Nationalists voting on a joint ticket. The reasons for that, at that time, were self-evident, and I do not intend to rehearse them.”
“We owe it to our citizens to build that into the architecture and, through that mechanism, come up with proposals that, through a motion in this Chamber, we put to London to try to mitigate their future thinking, not least when it comes to those matters that have not been devolved and are the responsibility of HMRC. <BR /> <BR />I say to the DUP in particular, have the circumstances not sufficiently changed in the last year for the DUP to take the natural conclusion of what Mr Robinson said a year ago and agree to establish a Committee here to influence what happens over the coming months and into the next mandate?”
“A lot of water has passed under the bridge since that time, and I would argue that, given the nature of this issue, the surrender of welfare responsibility to London with the LCM in November and the severe impacts in real time and much more than a technicality that the current Bill in London will have upon our citizens, then people should think again about building into the institutions of this Assembly a mechanism that can, as the amendment suggests, keep under review the 2015 Act; keep under review the Bill that is going through the Chambers in Westminster at the moment; monitor the implementation of both; and consider all consequential welfare measures and absence of mitigation.”
“Ms Bradley rightly pointed out that, this time last year, we made this proposal. When we made the proposal, this is what the then leader of the DUP and First Minister said:”
“What has freezing benefits for four years got to do with timing? It is all about hitting in the pocket people in Northern Ireland who will have, unlike in the couple of years since 2011, no uprating of their benefit. <BR /> <BR />There is a change coming, and there will be real timeline impacts as a result of what London is proposing in that people here will have to live with the consequences of the LCM for four years. For those three reasons, the SDLP again makes the argument that we should have a welfare reform and measures Committee.”
“It is not a technicality to hand powers to London that see benefit freezes for four years. It is not a technicality to hand to London unilateral power to reduce the benefit cap when national circumstances, as London deem them to be, prevail. It is not a technicality that the House of Lords last week voted down the ESA proposals that form part of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. Similarly, on 24 January, Mr O'Dowd said that London was:”
“<BR /> <BR />The reason why I say that it seems to me that some people do not understand this or pretend not to understand it is the comments that were made by two Ministers. On 7 December 2015, the deputy First Minister said that the vote on the LCM that took place in the House:”
“Support for mortgage interest will now be treated as a loan. Those are the powers that the Assembly gave to London through the LCM. <BR /> <BR />We owe it to our citizens that, given what London is doing and what London is going to impose, we in this place have an institutional mechanism to try to manage, monitor and mitigate all of that. We are now in the surprising position where it was Members of the House of Lords last week who voted down the London welfare proposals to reduce people's entitlement to ESA by £30 a week. We are relying on London to make the argument that the Assembly should have been making in terms of its own authority. Is there not a responsibility to our citizens and communities to manage all of that?”
“<BR /> <BR />I will not have the opportunity tonight to read into the record all that I intended to, but the SDLP leader will lodge a commentary in the Library on the scale of what the Assembly agreed in November by way of the LCM and what it will mean for people in Northern Ireland, the highlight of which is benefit freezes for four years. That is what we gave London the power to do. There will be benefit freezes for four years in jobseekers' allowance, employment and support allowance (ESA), income support, child benefit, applicable amounts of housing benefit and so on and so forth. The Work and Pensions Minister will have unilateral powers, when national circumstances require him to do so, to vary the benefits rate. There are enormous changes for people on work-related ESA and major cuts to their entitlements.”
“<BR /> <BR />The second reason is that, at times, I wonder whether there is a full appreciation of the scale of what is happening in welfare reform, arising from the passage of the Northern Ireland (Welfare Reform) Act 2015 in Westminster before Christmas and the forthcoming passing of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, which is going through Westminster and is the consequence of the legislative consent motion (LCM) passed in November in this place. Sometimes I wonder if the full scale of that is appreciated and how it will work through in the lives of the citizens and communities of this part of Ireland. A welfare reform and measures Committee would enable the Assembly, in recognition of the scale of what is happening and what is to come, to have an institutional mechanism to monitor and look at all of that.”
“We have proposed a welfare reform and measures Committee. I note that Ms Bradley said that she supported the sentiment but did not, from what I can conclude, support the method. Taking a step back from the wider politics around this issue and this place, I would like to advance a number of reasons why this is the time and place to introduce this mechanism. The first is that, if the history of the last two or three years demonstrates anything, it proves that we should try to build better mechanisms into the architecture of devolution so that we can better manage the welfare issue. The history of the past two or three years and the contention and turbulence around welfare suggest to us that the more we try to manage it, the better it is for the authority of devolution.”
“I again acknowledge the immense contribution of both John McCallister and the Bill Office. In a frenzied end of mandate period, that office in particular has been very supportive of Members from all parties across the range of legislation, including this Bill. <BR /> <BR />I will commence my comments by addressing amendment No 6 and other SDLP amendments and will then, very quickly, address the amendments tabled by other parties.”
“Following up on the last point that the Minister made, can he confirm the number of cases in which H1N1 has been the cause of death or a contributory factor? To go back to my substantive question, are you satisfied that, regarding the scale of the threat, all that can be done is being done to bring information to the attention of the public and to make interventions to protect the public?”
“In one way, it arises from Fresh Start, so it would be interesting to know whether the First Minister and deputy First Minister, in the context of Fresh Start, on the amendment that was to have been proposed by Mr McCallister.”
“There is a passing temptation to oppose the technical amendments so that the reduction in the number of MLAs is pushed to 2026. On this occasion, however, I will resist that temptation and say that we are content to support the amendments outlined by the junior Minister in order to create certainty on the matter. I was anxious to hear from Mr McCallister about his amendment, because the SDLP was prepared to be persuaded by an argument on the terms in the amendment to have a review in 2018. Maybe we will yet hear that argument. The junior Minister indicated that it is a matter for Members to consider, but it would be interesting to know whether there is anything more than that from the First Minister and deputy First Minister, given that the Bill, inter alia, arises from political discussions.”
“Given the new Pledge of Office, does she agree that there should be no doubt whatsoever that that includes endorsing, in word and deed, the activities of the National Crime Agency in the North and the Criminal Assets Bureau in Ireland?”
“The Minister referred to the legislation at Westminster and the Pledge of Office. Clause 7 states:”
“All those should be acknowledged, as Mr Maskey and the Chair did, but, in many terms, this is a product of their work, not just a product of the work of those on the political side.”