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 13 of 32.
“I respect your judgement that you think that it should be now. I think that you should respect the judgements of others, especially people who come from a particular experience of exclusion.”
“I will just answer two questions that the Member raised. The first is, in the context of 1998-2002, when there was still terror on our streets, there were still people robbing banks and one party would not even sit round the Executive table, it is a bit inappropriate to be naysaying the achievements of the UUP and the SDLP in those very turbulent circumstances. I am mindful of the work that was done at that time on dealing with the past and dealing with the future, and I do not think that it is accurate to diminish and degrade that contribution. <BR /> <BR />The second point is that the principle of inclusion comes down to a matter of judgement about when is the right time to make the right interventions to reduce or increase numbers of Departments or MLAs. It is a matter of judgement.”
“It is summed up by one of Mr McIlveen's last contributions when he said that we were overgoverned. <BR /> <BR />There are arguments about how to do government better and about how to do government in smaller segments. When I was Environment Minister, I sponsored legislation to reduce the number of Departments. There are arguments there, but this issue is about much more than just good governance and overgovernance: it touches on the very nature of politics, the quality of government and the future of our society. In supporting the motion, we come at it from that point of view, which is, I suggest, much more profound than simply the politics of number-crunching.”
“Whilst we come at the argument differently, I do not come to a different outcome from the Member. That is why we are voting in favour of reducing the number of MLAs. What I am saying to you is this: understand the history of why we had a higher number of MLAs, a higher number of Departments and the petition of concern to protect against abuse by majorities. It is revealing, and it could be a bit disconcerting, that those reference points and the reason for inclusion seem to have been edited out of any contribution made by the DUP to this approach.”
“It really is revealing that, in a debate years after the Good Friday Agreement, when a proposal on reducing the number in each constituency from six to five is endorsed, that history is not referred to in one sentence of the contributions by DUP Members, until Mrs Pengelly happened to be prompted in her reply to feel it necessary to respond to the issue of inclusion. <BR /> <BR />In supporting the motion, we come at it from not only what the right number should be in this phase of our history but what is right in terms of the principles necessary to have sustainable politics going forward.”
“I will give way in a second. <BR /> <BR />The SDLP and the Ulster Unionists, subject to what Mr Nesbitt might say, will end up on the wrong side of this vote, but I think that we will probably be in the same place on the argument. When it came to the number of Departments, it was Seamus Mallon who made the call for a larger number, once again to ensure as much political ownership of government as possible, unlike the previous days in this Building, when government was exclusive and owned by the Unionist Party to the exclusion of others. <BR /> <BR />Similarly, we built into the Good Friday Agreement the petition of concern to ensure that, whatever membership of this place the electorate produced, no one community would have the call over another on critical issues and issues of equality.”
“Therefore, in the foundation document, the founding fathers and sisters of the Good Friday Agreement said that that was the basis on which we were going to proceed. Do not reduce the issue to one of simply numbers without acknowledging the arguments, reasons and grounds that led to that principle being established in the first place.”
“Remember, at that stage, arguably, and as corroborated by the election results of 1998, in singular, narrow electoral terms, the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP would have looked for a smaller number of MLAs and a smaller number of Departments because, in that space, we would have had more control. What did the Ulster Unionist and the SDLP leadership agree in the run-up to the early hours of Good Friday morning? We agreed on 108 because we believed that, after decades of exclusion, in the foundation document of the Good Friday Agreement, a message would be sent to all of our people — those who felt included and those who were excluded — that they would have their place in the new political order that was being defined by that agreement.”
“politically and publicly. She also spoke about being on the wrong side of the public mood. Mr McIlveen spoke of tightening our belt. That is reducing our politics to the technical and the numerical, whereas is the lesson of the Good Friday Agreement and our disputed history not that you do not reduce our politics to technocracy and arithmetic, which is, essentially, the DUP's argument today? <BR /> <BR />Why should we not reduce it to that point? Look at the Good Friday Agreement. I remember the negotiations and conversations in our party about why it should be 108 Members.”
“You did not say that; you just said "further". I will take up that invitation and also come back to Mr Lyttle's point, but before doing so I will go back to junior Minister Pengelly's contribution, reflected and confirmed by Mr McIlveen's comments. She spoke of being:”
“The Member might regret inviting me to explain further what is behind my thinking.”
“I will come to that point about the spirit and practice of inclusion. Whilst Mr Lyttle supports the principle of inclusion, behind his question, his thinking is clearly uncertain about what that should mean. I will come back to that point when I have developed the argument about inclusion.”
“To corroborate that point, not once did Mr McIlveen even hint at the word "inclusion", whilst he spoke about numbers here and numbers there. <BR /> <BR />In supporting the motion, the SDLP acknowledges arguments about numbers, but it is not captured by those arguments. If we reduce our politics to the number of MLAs, Departments or this or that, we are not honouring the foundation document of this place and its values, namely the Good Friday Agreement and subsequent agreements.”
“As with the accelerated passage motion, I confirm that we will support the Second Stage of the Bill, but, in so doing, the SDLP and I are concerned. That was captured in virtually all Mr McIlveen's contribution, which essentially reduced the issue to the politics of the number cruncher. <BR /> <BR />Mr McIlveen's last comment was that he hoped that, by the end of the next mandate, we will again reduce the number of MLAs: the politics of the number cruncher. That was reflected in junior Minister Pengelly's contribution when she moved the motion for accelerated passage. She never once referred to the principle that informed why, in 1998, the authors of the Good Friday Agreement opted for an Assembly of 108 Members. Not once was there a reference to the principles and values that informed that decision.”
“Let us not make the principle of simplicity the enemy of the principle of inclusion.”
“Whilst the reduction from six to five, in numerical terms, is simple, let us caution ourselves that, in doing that, we do not simply go down the road of further mechanisms that might, innocently or otherwise, lead to the removal of the principle of inclusion that was so denied to our politics for so long and to our people for too long.”
“It may make the Assembly more efficient and effective, but to presume so is a leap of faith that is not based in logic or political reality. I will comment more on that at Second Stage. <BR /> <BR />As the last Member who spoke indicated, it is a simple Bill, but it is not a simple proposal. The architecture of the Good Friday Agreement built multiple mechanisms into the life of these institutions to recognise that which was denied to too many people and citizens of this part of the world since the partition of Ireland: the principle of inclusion.”
“We also put down a marker that, if the next mandate is to be materially different from this one, the House, the Committees and the people of Northern Ireland need to have a full opportunity to assess all legislation that comes before the Chamber rather than rushing to legislate at the end of mandates, which is never the wisest or most sensible course of action. <BR /> <BR />I differ from Mr Sheehan in one regard. He said that the purpose behind the Bill was to make the Chamber and politics "more efficient" and effective. Anyone who thinks that reducing the number of Members in each constituency from six to five will provide a panacea and automatically make something more efficient and effective does not recognise the scale of the issues that face the Assembly and politics in the North.”
“I will reserve most of my remarks for the Second Stage of the Bill, which will follow shortly. I want to make three points at this stage. <BR /> <BR />Like other parties, the SDLP consents to accelerated passage on a without prejudice basis, in that it should not be the norm — it is not the norm — and should be the exception. In the last days of this mandate, we find that it is not exceptional to have accelerated passage, and, on too many occasions, it is beginning to be used to inform how the business of the House is conducted. That is not consistent with best democratic standards or the best input by the people whom we represent. We need to caution ourselves that, whilst the SDLP will consent to accelerated passage in this regard, it is without prejudice, and it should be used only in exceptional circumstances.”
“I recognise that there are great schools in West Belfast, and there is good delivery of further education, but the profile of need requires an alternative and complementary approach across public services, not least in education, through the alternative and community-based model.”
“Twenty years after the Good Friday Agreement, the percentage of people in West Belfast coming out of school with no qualifications is 38·1%, which, again, is the highest in Northern Ireland. The profile of need of people who want public services or seek educational advancement in West Belfast is as acute as it ever was and is acute across all indicators of life expectancy, child poverty, people coming out of school and going onto JSA, and people with no qualifications whatever. <BR /> <BR />That profile requires a bespoke approach to address the need. That bespoke approach is not just the institutional mechanisms of delivery but the community-based and alternative mechanisms of delivery.”
“<BR /> <BR />Nearly 20 years since the Good Friday Agreement and nearly 10 years after the restoration of devolution, the lowest life expectancy in Northern Ireland is in West Belfast, where the average life expectancy of males is 74·1 years and 79·8 years for females. These are the worst figures in greater Belfast for life expectancy. Thirty-nine per cent of children in West Belfast are in child poverty, while the average across Northern Ireland is 21·4%, a figure that is worsening in all parts of Northern Ireland and will worsen between now and 2020. The average in Britain is 18·2%. In West Belfast, the number of people aged 18 to 24 on jobseeker's allowance (JSA) is 9%, which, again, is the highest in Northern Ireland, where the average is 6%. This is crucial to the points that Jennifer McCann made.”
“The work that is going on in Suffolk or on the Shankill — areas that are unionist by political tradition — and the leadership at a community level across the delivery of public services in those areas as much as in other parts of west Belfast is remarkable. <BR /> <BR />The second reason why the debate is important and the emphasis on alternative and community-based education is important is the profile of need in West Belfast. The proper points made by Jennifer McCann about people who are outside the life of institutions, including education institutions, means that they require and are better enabled to access public services, not least education, through community-based and alternative models. You can see that across the delivery of public services in West Belfast, and it remains a necessary means of delivery.”
“That richness and diversity has many reasons, one of which is that, after partition, the state denied to people in areas of Northern Ireland, not least in West Belfast, what they were entitled to. As a consequence, the culture of the community became that it needed to organise — most people organised democratically — in order to make demands of the state to ensure that its needs were met. The richness of the community life in West Belfast is one of the reasons why alternative approaches to the provision of public services, be it in education or otherwise, is a particularly vibrant and viable way to deliver public policy. I stress that this is not particular to one part of West Belfast.”
“You can see that expressed in sporting organisations, not least the GAA, in campaigning organisations and in all sorts of lobbying and advocacy groups on behalf of the community.”
“I thank Ms McCann for bringing the matter to the Floor of the Assembly and the Minister for attending and replying to the debate. <BR /> <BR />For me, the reason why the debate and the policy intention behind it are important comes down to two important streams. The first is that there are many communities in Northern Ireland, acutely so in West Belfast, where the richness and strength of the place comes from the richness and strength of its community life. I am not being selective about any one part of West Belfast. If you look across West Belfast, you see that, perhaps as much as anywhere and more than in most areas, there is a richness in its community life.”
“That would not be easy work, but it is important to know where that is going. All my questions are based on what will happen in real time in the real lives of the people of this island. If you have all-Ireland recognition of penalty points, you better protect citizens from the risks on the road, be they at the hands of a young driver or any other driver.”
“Unless I am mistaken, at the end of this mandate, we have not yet concluded the complex technical differences that exist between the two jurisdictions, including on the management and enforcement of penalty points. <BR /> <BR />So, where are we? If we are going to have strategies to protect citizens of Ireland, particularly given the free movement of people, subject to what happens in the European debate and the outcome of the referendum, and if we are going to have continued free movement of people across these islands for business, tourism, recreation, family life, education or whatever reason, one of the ways in which we can better protect people is to have, in addition to all-Ireland recognition of driving disqualifications and all-Ireland common standards on alcohol in people's blood, all-Ireland recognition of penalty points.”
“Also, on the far side of this Bill — again, I am subject to correction due to my failing memory — we will have the same levels across the island when it comes to drink-driving offences and the alcohol in somebody's blood. However, when are we going to have all-Ireland recognition of penalty points? Whilst this is technical and difficult, it is nonetheless a commitment that was entered into. It was a commitment that the British Government, strangely, would not enter into. When the British Government were asked to join with the Northern Ireland Government in having all-islands recognition of penalty points, they resisted and said that they would have a watching brief from afar to see how Dublin and Belfast got on.”
“That is not logical or necessarily the best of laws. This is a good Bill that shapes things in a way that has not been done before anywhere on these islands. Hopefully, others will follow suit, especially in London, because they are resistant to these sorts of interventions. However — I might be wrong about this, but I do not think I am — the hour of maximum risk being the hour in which we do not provide maximum protection does not seem to be the best of approaches in what is otherwise a good Bill. <BR /> <BR />On the far side of this Bill, we will have all-Ireland recognition of disqualifications; in fact, we have recognition of that within these islands.”
“Yet, there are going to be no restrictions on new drivers in that hour. If we are going to have protections for people in law then, logically, we should protect them at the hour of greatest risk. However, this legislation — for the very understandable reasons, advanced by the Ulster Farmers' Union, Mrs Overend and others, that there could be a disproportionate impact on rural drivers — could end up not protecting people on our roads, urban and rural, in the hour of maximum risk.”
“I therefore ask the Minister: where is the Association of British Insurers — now that we have a Bill that will shortly receive Royal Assent — on how that will bring benefit? Is it not a message to people in Northern Ireland that, as a direct consequence of the Assembly legislating, there might be a reduction in insurance premiums, especially to the very extravagant rate for our new drivers? <BR /> <BR />Unlike Mrs Overend, and maybe like the Department, I regret the fact that the restriction on new drivers is for fewer hours than it might otherwise have been. I do not think that it was ever the intention — maybe I am wrong — that it would be 24 hours. Setting that aside, as I recall, the hour when young drivers are most at risk is either 9.00 pm to 10.00 pm or 10.00 pm to 11.00 pm.”
“What will be the read-across in insurance premiums? Will they do what they did in Dublin earlier today and tell a Government that it is not their responsibility, wash their hands and say, "Over to you"? <BR /> <BR />One of the purposes — not the primary one — is to see insurance companies honour their commitments that a Bill of this sort would work itself through to insurance premiums. They should not be given the easy way out, which, no doubt, they will claim, because the restrictions on new drivers driving at night are less than they might otherwise have been, and that that relieves them of the responsibility they flagged up and, in public, committed to in the early months of 2013.”
“That attitude was my experience of the Association of British Insurers during my time in DOE; that it was everyone's responsibility but theirs to protect the citizen. In the wash-up, the Association of British Insurers — I believe in writing, but certainly in public — confirmed at a conference in London in the early months, I think, of 2013, that if the full measures proposed in the then draft Bill were introduced, that should see a reduction in insurance premiums for young drivers of up to 19%. So, it would be interesting to hear from the Minister what the Association of British Insurers is now saying in relation to what they know is going to be the content of the new Act. <BR /> <BR />What will the implications and benefits be for all our drivers, not least our young drivers who are the particular focus of the Bill?”
“The answer to that question is in a letter, no doubt buried somewhere in departmental files, from the Association of British Insurers. Remember who you are dealing with. These are insurance companies that met our Taoiseach in Dublin today in relation to their response to the failure to provide insurance to those who are subject to flooding. I heard one of the representatives of the Irish insurers on RTÉ news this morning describing, in that self-serving way, how it was not their responsibility to deal with floods; it was the responsibility of the Irish Government to put anti-flooding measures in place. It was as if they could — excuse the pun — wash their hands of any responsibility to protect the citizen.”
“My figures are subject to correction. <BR /> <BR />Remember that, 20 or 30 years ago, deaths on our roads every year were measured in the hundreds. We then got to a point at which the figure was less than 100 and even less than 60. There is an issue with the Bill. In real time, in the real lives of people on this island, there has been a more accelerated reduction in road deaths in the South last year compared with previous years. The Minister might want to reflect on that and comment on it in his response. <BR /> <BR />Mr Maginness asked what insurance companies would do in response to the legislation, which, as Mrs Overend rightly pointed out, is the most progressive — for want of a better word — on these islands, when it comes to the architecture on the training and management and penalties for those who drive cars.”
“It is only in the last year that those figures have begun to reduce, but not to the historically low levels of three, four or five years ago. On the rest of the island, there was a 15% reduction in road deaths last year, so why has there not been a comparable 15% reduction in Northern Ireland? The reduction last year was somewhat less than that — unless my figures are wrong — and the rest of Ireland is showing better authority when it comes to road death reductions after two or three years of increases. I ask the Minister to comment on that. In particular, I ask him to comment on whether there have been any further pressures on his budget for road safety advertisements, which have been part of the architecture that brought about reductions in road deaths in Northern Ireland over many years to a figure of 59 deaths three years ago.”
“It is in the nature of legislation that, during its various processes, conversations or discussions can too often see thresholds being degraded rather than enhanced. When it comes to the protection and safety of our citizens, particularly those who are on our roads, and as I Iook back on the short time that I was involved with the Bill, I regret that the thresholds were not pushed higher so that, when there was pressure to reduce those thresholds further, as is evident in this Bill, there might have been more space to protect the higher thresholds rather than the lower ones. <BR /> <BR />The reason why the Bill is so important is evidenced by the fact that, in two of the last three years, figures for road deaths in Northern Ireland have increased.”
“In a previous life, I had a tiny responsibility at an early stage for this piece of legislation, so I thought that it might be appropriate to make some comments. <BR /> <BR />I have said before in the Chamber that I recall an occasion when officials brought forward a paper on this legislation. Maybe it was one or two of the officials who are sitting not too far away at the moment. The paper outlined recommendations on how to deal with road traffic safety, management and training people who are going onto our roads. I have one regret from that time. Whilst I did not accept the recommendations — as I recall, they were less than is now in the Bill — to pick up something that Mrs Overend said, I regret that we did not go further.”
“You subsequently said that you were "not actively changing objective need". Can you confirm what your position is? Given that you have said that you would not necessarily move away from objective need, are you saying to the House that there might be circumstances in which you might find it necessary to move away from it?”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. I think that I have proposed five interventions, all of which were meant to be positive and should in no way be portrayed as negative. May I probe you further? Hansard will confirm, Minister, that you have just said that you are:”
“Whilst nine Departments may accommodate that, although it may not for the reasons that I have outlined, in our view, there is a need to build into the legal architecture of government responsibilities and duties to ensure that that to which we all aspire — joined-up government and the best outcomes for our people — is secured, rather than put in jeopardy. <BR /> <BR />Save those comments, we are content to support the motion.”
“Mr Frew has gone, but I want to make the point that it required a private Member's Bill from Steven Agnew to put into law a statutory requirement on Departments to cooperate on children's services. That was echoed by, I think, the Deputy Chair of the Committee, Mr Lyttle, who called for a more general statutory duty between Departments. My sense is that, while nine Departments could have more coherence internally and externally with the other Departments, the best way to discipline everybody to ensure that we have the best form of government going forward is to have statutory duties to cooperate and statutory requirements in respect of any policy sector.”
“Maybe the First Minister thinks that that did not add up to very much; my experience was that it added up to an awful lot. If we are going to maximise the opportunities with nine Departments, there is another way to do it. The reason why I say that is that, in an event held upstairs in the last two hours, the Equality Coalition launched a report called 'Austerity and Inequality: A Threat to Peace?'. I might not necessarily agree with that contention, but, nonetheless, one of the speakers said that the relationship between civil society and government had to be of a different character in the future from what it had been in the past.”
“For all the skills and craft of many in the Civil Service, the lateral and most imaginative independent thinking often comes from outside the nine Departments that we will have. The scale of input that we could have — not through the civic advisory forum alone, useful though limited as that model will be — and the opportunity to bring in people who are the specialists in business, anti-poverty, human rights, disability, the environment or whatever it might be, as we are doing with Eileen Evason on the recommendations on allocations of welfare mitigation moneys, is a model that we need to escalate. The experience that I had in Departments, certainly in the Department of the Environment, was that the freshest thinking often came in when it was structured into the life of the Department through various summonses.”
“I appreciate that, but I am really taking up what Mr Lyttle said in his contribution when he was not speaking as Deputy Chair of the Committee. I am looking at the model of nine and trying to outline, as the SDLP sees it, where there could be added value over and above the fact that there will be nine Departments. The point that I am making, Mr Speaker, is that bringing in Eileen Evason is a recognition that there is such a scale of authority outside government that can inform the work of nine Departments, when we have the nine Departments established. Going by that model, all the Eileen Evasons should be brought in to help government in order to maximise the working of the nine Departments in the next mandate and beyond.”
“The decision to bring in Eileen Evason in order to make recommendations on how welfare moneys might be spent in mitigation was, in my view —”
“<BR /> <BR />The reason why that is so important is that a consequence of nine Departments is that Ministers will have a wider range of responsibilities and, if the Ministers are not fully facing up to and able to deal with the wider range of responsibilities that they have within their Departments because the Departments are bigger, there could be a greater failure of government on the far side of nine Departments than before. The need for coordination and integration between Departments could also be at some risk, given that Ministers, even in their day-to-day work, will have a higher level of responsibility and power. <BR /> <BR />The second point that I will make is this. There is a curious reference in A Fresh Start/False Start.”
“<BR /> <BR />In terms of the quality and character of our Government going into the next mandate and for decades thereafter, we in the SDLP believe that, whilst one day we will win the argument for the reunification of our country, part of the architecture of the reunification of our country will be an Assembly in the North for a multiplicity of reasons. However, if we are going to have assemblies in the North over many decades, are we going to have a panel of Ministers that demonstrates the difference between being in the Government and being in power?”
“Long before all that narrative, I was saying that Sturgeon, Salmond, Swinney and the other Ministers in Scotland knew more than any panel of Ministers on these islands the difference between being in the Government and being in power. Whether it is nine, 10, 11 or 12 Departments, if you end up with Ministers who are still short in knowing the difference between being in the Government and being in power, the nine-Department model will not remedy that failure. Mr Frew seems to be nodding in agreement.”