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 14 of 32.
“I know where I made errors and mistakes, and I still regret some of them; because what I left behind when I left the Government was less than I might otherwise have achieved if I had not made those mistakes and errors. <BR /> <BR />The wider point is this: do we as a political institution, and do those who are going into and are in the Government, fully appreciate the difference between being in the Government and being in power, in the way that, as I have always said, in my view, the Scottish Nationalist Government did? That was long before they led the campaign for independence and had the election result that they had last May and in anticipation of the results that they are likely to have next May.”
“You may well make that point from a sitting position, First Minister. However, there is a huge difference between being in the Government and being in power. In fact, when I left the Government, I got a letter from the First Minister and deputy First Minister about the contribution that I made during the time that I was in the Government. You may recall that. I do not know whether the First Minister writes to all former Ministers when they have vacated office, but, on this occasion, he certainly found it necessary, for some reason or other, and I acknowledge the letter and thank him and the deputy First Minister for it. <BR /> <BR />The point that I am making is that, when I was in the Government, I know when I did not live up to the difference between being in the Government and being in power.”
“In my view and that of the SDLP, if we are going to maximise the opportunities of having nine Departments and the opportunities for the Government into the next mandate and beyond, a range of other interventions are complementary and mutual to the nine-Department model. In that regard, these are the points that I would make to Mr Frew. He may have heard me say this before, because I say it all the time, no doubt somewhat tediously, that there is a huge difference between Ministers being in the Government and being in power, and that any Minister —”
“I am wondering, behind the comment that she made this morning that no policies will be terminated at this stage, what all those words mean in relation to the core value and principle of objective need rather than spatial deprivation? Is there a rebalancing about to go on, if some people get their way, in relation to all those sorts of issues? The junior Minister may want to come back on that. <BR /> <BR />I will now deal with the point Mr Frew rightly made in relation to what will happen on the far side of nine Departments being established. That is the key issue. What is going to be the character and content of the Government on the far side of nine Departments being created?”
“Obviously, that is a very important thing that she should say. However, let me refer to the contribution that she made two weeks ago at Question Time when she made reference to the High Court judgement in relation to the failure of the Government to have an anti-poverty strategy. I will conclude this point quickly because I am sure that it is already beginning to irritate the Speaker, but I think that it is fair to ask, in the context of this proposal, what she was getting at in the contribution that she made on behalf of the First Minister, who has now joined us, when she said, in response to the questioning of Members in respect of the anti-poverty strategy:”
“I am glad that the Member made that point because I am going to address it in my next comments. I accept that nobody said that the reduction in the number of Departments to nine — or, if Mr Allister had his way, to six, seven, eight, or whatever notion might be presented by any Member — would by itself improve things. I am making the point that Mr Frew made, namely that having nine Departments may help, but only if the wider architecture and character of government is such that it maximises the opportunity presented by having nine, rather than more than nine, Departments. <BR /> <BR />Let me ask the junior Minister something. There was a phrase that she used. I know why she put it on the record and I would like to probe her a wee bit in this regard. She, rightly so, said:”
“Having nine Departments can mean more joined-up government and the elimination of unnecessary bureaucracy, but the mere fact of having nine does not bring that into reality.”
“and "eliminate ... unnecessary bureaucracy" and so on and so forth. We hear scores of warm, meaningless phrases on how, somehow, the mere reduction to nine Departments will have a transformative impact on the character of government and the content of our politics. That view, if anybody indulges it, is as idle as it is casual, false and foolish.”
“I will give way, but I will finish this point before I do. <BR /> <BR />The junior Ministers say that having nine Departments:”
“May I also again caution us? If you analyse the contributions of both junior Ministers — I know that this is not what they intended in their contributions, and I am sure that it is not what others, including Mr Frew, intended in theirs — there is a sense that, somehow or other, the reduction to nine Departments is a panacea for the failure of politics, government and Ministers over recent years.”
“First, I acknowledge the contribution of Pat Ramsey to politics in the north-west, on the island and in the Chamber. His craft in working with other parties, his craft in his contributions on the Floor of the Assembly and his craft in taking forward many issues in a very productive way are the measure of what he will leave in the Chamber as he moves forward in his life. <BR /> <BR />In her opening remarks, the junior Minister sourced this proposal not just in Stormont House last Christmas but in 'A Fresh Start': I wish that people would stop doing that. Everybody knows that 'A Fresh Start' — this is the kindest comment that I can make about it — is a false start. All the hopes, expectations and ambitions of so many of our people in those negotiations can be best summed up as a false start rather than a fresh start.”
“<BR /> <BR />That all having been said, and having cautioned myself and hopefully a few others about routinely going down the road of using accelerated mechanisms to deal with important business, given the character of the motion that is before us and the opportunity that will arise with the transfer of functions Order, and whilst acknowledging, as was said, that this is a very simple proposal, but one that has very significant consequences — taking all that in the round — on this occasion, we will not dispute with the House that the accelerated passage motion that is before the Chamber is appropriate in these circumstances.”
“I thank the Speaker for that intervention. To conclude, I just want to make two points. Without detaining the House and getting into conflict with the Speaker, my first point is that one person's reneging on the agreement, so-called, at Stormont House is another person's honouring of it. Has that not been the dispute over the last six to nine months; that one party's view is, in many instances, in great tension and conflict with the view of other parties?”
“<BR /> <BR />I know that that is broadly the view of all parties, although, in my view, that has been challenged over the last number of weeks by the option of accelerated mechanisms being preferred for a number of matters relating to the authority of the Chamber to the point at which we had an accelerated mechanism yesterday that visited on the people of Northern Ireland not just the 2012 but the 2015 version of welfare reform. The dilution and degrading of devolution, never mind the impact of all that, has been referred to as a "technicality".”
“Whether it was yesterday's LCM, which was rightly defeated, the LCM on welfare reform — the 2012 and 2015 versions — which were wrongly supported, or today's proposal for accelerated passage for the Departments Bill, we need to caution ourselves about going down that road routinely rather than rarely. By using it routinely, we are degrading the character and content of devolution, the good authority of the House and the achievements of democratic struggle in this part of Ireland over many years, which brought into life the institutions that we now value. We need to be cautious about going down this road.”
“I apologise to the House: I was delayed upstairs at an event when the Deputy Chair of the Committee spoke. <BR /> <BR />I will take up Mr Hazzard's last comments. It should be the operating principle of the Chamber, whether it is accelerated passage or any vehicle that sidelines or goes around the good authority of the Chamber, that the Chamber should caution itself against any such approach, so that it is rarely used as opposed to routinely used. Unfortunately, we have had examples, even in the last two or three weeks — such examples might increase in the coming two or three months — where the option of an accelerated mechanism, either accelerated passage or a legislative consent motion, has become the practice or attempted practice of some.”
“In an attempt to ask a more balanced question than the previous MLA, I ask this: does the deputy First Minister agree that the blanket of national security that the British Government wrapped themselves in during the talks recently was a further example of their resistance to the truth and of truth-telling on their terms only? Does he also agree that the evidence of many years is that republican and loyalist organisations do exactly the same? They resist the truth and will only tell the truth on their terms. How can you reconcile the needs of victims and survivors if that is the attitude of so many?”
“Given that last comment in particular, the fact that there is to be a Budget for 2016-17 and that Programme for Government preparations are already under way, will you as Minister commit in the next financial year and thereafter to take forward a proposal for a university city deal in the Programme for Government, certainly for Derry if not for other cities in Northern Ireland, so that the door that seems to have been closed in the Fresh Start Agreement will be reopened?”
“<BR /> <BR />The third point, which has been touched on by a number of Members, is that I can understand that, on the far side of the Second World War, the intuition of the political establishment in London was to go for nuclear weapons. It might well have seen itself as the last nation standing in the face of the tyranny of Hitler. It was concerned that it could end up being the last nation standing in the face of tyranny from other parts of the globe. However, that intuition, which was understandable in one way, has now become the prevailing orthodoxy in London, and, to some degree, nuclear weapons have become a surrogate for a lost empire. They are a symbol of power and authority in a situation in which defence needs are of a different character from those that are ill-served by a replacement for Trident.”
“There are reports in the media, which have not been contradicted, of a battle of wills between the Ministry of Defence and the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to who will carry out procurement when it comes to the replacement for Trident. Apparently, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is arguing that he wants to build his empire and control the spend in order to ensure that the MoD experience, when costs escalated way beyond the initial budget, is not reproduced. On the simple issue of cost, I advise Members to be very vigilant that it will be £170 billion, because even the Chancellor of the Exchequer is advertising the fact that, in addition to building his political empire, which is now rampant across the British Government, he wants to control this spend because he knows the risks.”
“<BR />I agree with Mr Hazzard that, even if it were a matter of mere cost, we need to be very vigilant.”
“Around the world, 101 million children are not in primary school and 22 million are not routinely protected by inoculation, and still we want to spend £170 billion on a nuclear deterrent. <BR /> <BR />The point is that our support for this motion is not just about opposition to the replacement of Trident. It is also about a paradigm shift in the conduct of the London Government and Governments elsewhere to respond to the scale and character of those figures and to recognise that addressing them addresses the issues of international security and stability. That is why we believe that this motion is not just about defence and spend; it is about a paradigm shift to a world order and world ethics that are informed by and respond to the scale of all of that.”
“I will try to take forward some of the arguments made by Mr Dickson and Claire Hanna. Both referred to the need for interventions that revolve around aid and diplomacy to tackle poverty and the reservoirs from which extremism prospers. For us, unlike the last Member to speak, this motion is about defence, is about spend and is also about other matters, because you cannot deal with the issues of defence and spend on other matters in isolation from each other. To demonstrate that point, as we speak, 2·5 billion people around the world lack access to proper sanitation, one billion children are deprived of one or more services essential to survival and development, and 148 million under-fives in developing regions are underweight for their age. Yet we still want to spend £170 billion on a nuclear deterrent.”
“— towards an even better future than we have had over the last 20 years, but at the heart of it is inclusion. This is not the time to move in the direction of the Alliance motion, because, in our view, not least because of last week, it sits in conflict with that spirit.”
“It is because last week, as the Alliance Party understands better than anybody, we had a two-party deal that was not respectful of the principle of inclusion. It advertised why we continue to need to have principles of inclusion in the spirit that Mr Sheehan outlined, when it comes to the conduct of politics and government in Northern Ireland. We may have moved a long way from the past. We may be slowly moving, although some would doubt it —”
“It is a little-known fact that, when the SDLP had a bigger role in the Assembly through our electoral mandate, it was the SDLP that insisted on the number of Ministers that we will have up until 2016. That was the call made by Seamus Mallon and the SDLP. Why? It was because we wanted to have maximum ownership of and inclusion in the institutions in a situation where exclusion had been part of the culture and practice of some when it came to the conduct of politics and government in Northern Ireland. Therefore, to maintain the principle of inclusion, even though some might have argued that it did not serve the interests of the bigger parties, one of the bigger parties at that stage made that argument, and that argument continues. <BR /> <BR />Why does that argument continue?”
“The party will write to the authorities in the Chamber and in the Assembly to urge the creation of a welfare reform Committee both as an example of reform and to mitigate what might be coming down the road because of the impact of the LCM. For all those reasons, we welcome the issue of reform, but we think that the motion is overreaching, given that this is a settled matter. <BR /> <BR />I join Mr Weir and Mr Sheehan in emphasising some of the reasons why, whilst we need to move in the direction of a reduction to five Members per constituency by 2021, this is not the time and place to do so. It seems to me that the proposer gave technical reasons that did not address the points made, especially those made by Mr Sheehan.”
“This afternoon, the House of Commons will have a very short number of hours to accelerate through the Welfare Reform Bill that was part and parcel of the legislative consent motion (LCM) last week. That will have an enormous impact on our people, independent of the enormous impact on our people that will arise from London legislating for whatever it is that has or has not been agreed in principle in respect of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill that is currently in Westminster. That is why the SDLP returns to its proposal to have a dedicated welfare reform Committee as part and parcel of the life of these institutions to interrogate how welfare is or is not working in law and practice, not least now, because we have abandoned and surrendered to London our responsibility on those matters up to the end of 2016.”
“That is why some moderate proposals have been made in respect of how to manage a petition of concern and so on and so forth, including the number of Departments. That is all necessary and healthy. Any institution, be it an elected one or any other organisation, that is going to ensure that it lives up to best practice and serves those whom it seeks to serve needs to keep under constant interrogation and analysis the way in which it conducts its affairs, including its internal operations. That is why we in the SDLP believe that there should be more reform of how the Chamber conducts its affairs. <BR /> <BR />I will take one moment to give an example.”
“A number of contributors have already referred to Stormont House. While there remains a dispute about what was or was not agreed there, one matter that was born in Stormont House and was then settled in the discussions afterwards, was how we would manage the issue of the reduction in the number of MLAs. Given that it was a settled matter — you can hear echoes of that in the contributions made by the DUP and Sinn Féin — it should remain a settled matter rather than be revisited on the far side of this motion. <BR /> <BR />The Assembly institutions and the Executive and their conduct need reform. That is why, light-touch though some of it may be, in March the Executive agreed to mechanisms to ensure that three Ministers would have more authority around the Executive table.”
“I wish the First Minister good health and good times whenever he decides to depart from this place. <BR /> <BR />On Friday afternoon, the new leader of the SDLP, Colum Eastwood, wrote to the British Government and copied the Irish Government, recommending that the revised draft legacy Bill that, no doubt, the British Government have in their possession should be published, not least to inform victims and survivors in a way that they may not have been informed since Stormont House. Given the comments of the First Minister on Friday evening, do the First Minister and junior Minister endorse the recommendation that the leader of the SDLP put to the Secretary of State?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Subject to your authority, if even one Member persists in saying no, my understanding is that, in those circumstances, there is an obligation to have a recorded vote.”
“I appreciate the Minister's giving way, and I appreciate his comments. <BR /> <BR />You have created certainty on the issue of child poverty in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. Will you now create certainty on clauses 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of that Bill? Those clauses touch on the benefit cap; the review of the benefit cap; the freeze of certain social security benefits; changes to the child element of universal credit; the employment and support allowance work-related activity component; the universal credit limited capacity for work element; and the universal credit work-related requirements. Is it the case that all seven of those matters in the current draft Bill are the ones that have been agreed in principle? If not, which ones have been agreed in principle?”
“He may have powerful points, but if there is any element of authority in anything that I said, and if that is only part of what we are doing today in signing up to the LCM — abandoning our democratic authority; abandoning proper scrutiny in the Chamber; allowing the DWP to decide what is or is not an equality impact for our people; saying that DWP can change the benefit cap when it thinks that its national economic circumstances need it and can change the cap even though it has disproportionate and enormous impacts on our people in Northern Ireland — I say to the Minister, "Don't move the LCM".”
“but not today. Today is the one day when we do not confront and challenge the arrogance of what London is proposing. In that regard, I refer to Mr McKinney's comments this morning. He exposed very eloquently the scale of what has happened over the last 24 hours. <BR /> <BR />Even at this late moment, I put it to the Minister that he not move the LCM. That is what I am asking the Minister to do: not to move the LCM, for all the reasons that I outlined. It may be that the Minister will have powerful answers to all those points, shallow though many of them might have been.”
“We cannot stand aside and passively accept the swingeing cuts: the LCM is the passive acceptance of precisely that. Mr McGuinness needs to be careful about the words he chooses in future:”
“We cannot stand aside and passively accept: this LCM is passive acceptance of what London is doing. Whatever about legislating historically for the 2012 legislation, it hands over to London our authority for whatever has been agreed in principle on welfare and those elements of the 2015 Bill.”
“At the Third Reading, on 27 October, eight of your MPs voted against some of the proposals. Remember that that Bill is not through Westminster yet. We will see the full scale of what is next going to be served up on 25 November. <BR /> <BR />I want to conclude now with this quotation:”
“Those are not even the words of SDLP Members of the House of Commons but those of Sammy Wilson MP. That is his withering indictment of much of what is in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. In fact, I could not see much difference between us on the freezing of benefits, the further reduction in the benefit cap and working tax credits. I wish that he were here. Well, I do not actually wish that he were here, but you know what I mean. I wish that he were here to stand up and concur or not. <BR /> <BR />To be fair to the DUP, on a number of occasions at Westminster, it voted against the Government and for amendments that would mean interventions of a positive nature. Why, today, go contrary to what your MPs have done on those matters? At the Bill's Second Reading, on 20 July, seven of your MPs voted against what London was proposing.”
“Has anything been agreed by the Executive in that regard? <BR /> <BR />Ms Bradley made the very good point, and this is where there is unanimity, that it is all our constituents who are affected by all of this. To emphasise that, I want to quote what some people have said. This was a question to Mr Gauke, who, I understand, is the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and the decisions mentioned are those on welfare and tax credits:”
“Given that, as I understand it, the Minister has not signed off on, and may never sign off on, any scheme for how the bedroom tax may or may not operate, can I seek an assurance today that it is not going to apply in practice and that, if there is any issue about underoccupation, that will be looked at and assessed in the round, given the nature of the housing environment in Northern Ireland? Otherwise, Mr Hazzard's assertion that it is not there sounds a bit hollow, because it is there, but we do not know what "there" means. What categories are going to be vulnerable to the bedroom tax, Minister? Will it only, for example, be people who get into work and therefore, in our view, should have an assessment in principle outside the domain of the bedroom tax in law, or will it be other people? What has been agreed by the Executive?”
“What does that mean? Is it gone, or is it not?”
“There should be no bedroom tax in practice or law. We have lost the argument in law, but can we win the argument in practice? I quote:”
“Is it not going to apply at all, or is it going to apply only in the terms "as agreed by the Executive"? Mr Hazzard asserts that it is not there at all, yet it is there, but we do not really know what it means. The Minister knows — Mr Maskey will know this because we gave him our paper on welfare, noting that no papers were given to us — that:”
“If that is what we are signing up to, it is in open conflict with years of legislation and guidance in respect of how DSD and the Social Security Agency should manage that category of claimant. Irrespective of that fact, what are those parents meant to do when there is a lack of affordable, accessible childcare? If we do not have that protection, we sign up to that principle, which is in open conflict with so much of what our society requires. <BR /> <BR />I ask the Minister about the bedroom tax. Mr Hazzard asked, "Where is the bedroom tax?". There is a reference to the bedroom tax in paragraph 1.4 of section C of yesterday's proposals; it states:”
“Ministers, including the current one, have been very attentive to making sure that there are specific discrete measures to protect lone parents. If, today, we sign up in principle — I do not know whether we will — to the work-related requirements for parents in clause 15 of that Bill, are we pulling the rug from under the discrete interventions that we have developed over a number of years in respect of lone parents and availability for work? <BR /> <BR />Clause 16 means that all parents, lone and otherwise, will be expected to be available for and actively seeking work from the time their youngest child turns three in order to claim universal credit.”
“It seems that this LCM drives a coach and horses through that narrative and the child poverty strategy, and yet we seem to be casually and idly going along with it. <BR /> <BR />I will not detain the House in respect of work-related requirements for parents, save to say that, if we sign up to the work-related requirements for parents, which is clause 16 of the 2015 Bill, how that can that be reconciled with the issue of affordable, accessible childcare in Northern Ireland? Essentially, it is proposed that all parents will be expected to be available for and actively seeking work from the time their youngest child turns three in order to claim universal credit. <BR /> <BR />We have some very useful interventions in terms of welfare management for lone parents.”
“It then goes further by removing the income-based child poverty measures and targets and replacing them with measures that assess worklessness, educational attainment at 16, family breakdown, debt and addiction, and duties on national and local government to reduce child poverty. The London School of Economics (LSE), following a consultation around this in 2012-13, concluded:”
“I look to the Minister for confirmation. <BR /> <BR />It goes further. Can you imagine any Parliament retrospectively changing the name of a Bill? Can you imagine the ridicule that any of our Ministers would face if they came wandering into the Chamber and said that they wanted to retitle legislation from 2010 because they found it upsetting? They would be taken apart not just by 'The Stephen Nolan Show' but by anybody with an ounce of wit. It seems — I am subject to correction — that that is what we are signing up to today. Why would we collude with a Tory elite that does not like the words "child poverty" and replaces them with "life chances" retrospectively?”
“<BR /> <BR />The four measures of income-based child poverty in the 2010 Act are relative income poverty, absolute income poverty, the combined low income and material deprivation measure and a measure of persistent poverty. What does this Bill, which is part of the LCM and may or may not be part of what has been signed up to in principle by the DUP and Sinn Féin, do? It will retrospectively rename the Child Poverty Act as the "Life Chances Act". What a statement of Tory dogma and what a statement by parties in the Chamber. Rather than name the issue as child poverty, we end up naming it "life chances". Why in the name of God are we adopting Tory elite language to interpret and explain to people the scale of child poverty in this part of Ireland, if that is what the legislative consent motion means?”