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 17 of 32.
“Therefore, not only does there have to be a joined-up response from our domestic Government but the London Government need to recognise that, if we are to deal with the trauma of our conflict, including the good proposals that are coming forward in respect of mental trauma, on which I think there is probably unanimity across all the parties in the negotiations, they need to work through that. If they want to help us deal with the legacy of our conflict — they say they do and, today, they have shared with the parties elements of the Bill that is to be tabled in the House of Commons to deal with the past at an institutional level — they also need to recognise that we need to deal with it at a practical level.”
“In the talks, it has been the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party who has been making the point about the provision of a mental trauma centre and the needs of our people when it comes to mental trauma, remembering that one in 10 of our people receive incapacity benefits. In Britain, the figure is one in five — no, it is one in 20. I have to correct myself: the scale of people on incapacity benefit here is twice that in Britain, whatever those figures look like. When you interrogate those figures somewhat further, you see that the highest levels of child poverty and mental ill-health are in those areas impacted by the conflict.”
“<BR /> <BR />The London Government need to recognise that we are trying to legislate for our particular circumstances because they are trying to damage our ability to tackle those particular circumstances. The Children's Commissioner, writing in the 'Belfast Telegraph' yesterday said:”
“<BR /> <BR />Quite a number of us are getting weary of the single transferable speech that is coming from the Secretary of State and the Treasury about there being no more money, when we have much more poverty. Whether it is an issue of money for welfare or more money for work, will the London Government get it into their heads that the ambition of the Bill and tackling the scale of child poverty will be damaged and undermined if they do not fully understand the scale of the issues that we face when it comes to child poverty and the scale of response required to protect those who are in poverty, be they children or families, help the children affected to get work when they grow up and help their parents to get work now?”
“There was an ambition to get the level of child poverty down over the lifetime of this mandate and up to 2020, yet some of the figures from the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) suggest that relative and absolute child poverty will be above 30% by 2020. Some people dispute some of the figures, but they are all going in the wrong direction, even if you dispute the conclusions drawn from them. <BR /> <BR />Here we are in 2015, having gone up from 20% to 23% against one of the indicators in the last year, and the evidence indicates that the figures are going in the wrong direction over the next four or five years. That policy content is one of the features that is in the foreground and background of the Bill. It should be in the foreground of the negotiations that are going on a few hundred yards from here.”
“These figures have relevance to the Bill and to the negotiations, and they should, for reasons that will I make clear in a second, inform both. Just last week, DSD confirmed that, in 2013-14, some 376,000 people in Northern Ireland remained on a relatively low income, with the average household income dropping by 1%. Among the households, 213,000 working-age adults and 63,000 pensioners were living on the breadline. When you probe further into the 376,000 people who are on relatively low incomes, the child poverty figure was 23%, or 101,000 people, which was up from 20% the previous year. <BR /> <BR />So, according to our Government, according to DSD, child poverty is up from 20% to 23% in a year, with over 100,000 children living in poverty. As one of the children's charities said, that number is expected to rise even further.”
“The Churches in Northern Ireland and DSD gave huge evidence on the scale of poverty and relative poverty in Northern Ireland, particularly the poverty of our children. In my view, that is the policy background — in fact, the policy foreground — that should surround the Bill because, if we want to have cooperation in children and young people's services, the first task of that cooperation must be to address the objective circumstances experienced by children and young people — children in particular — not least, the scale of relative poverty. That is what DSD confirmed last week. <BR /> <BR />I make my next point not just in respect of the content of the Bill but in respect of the content of the talks that continue a few hundred yards from here in Stormont House.”
“In the event that our institutions continue for the residue of the mandate, that burden on the Bill Office will become more intense, given the current work-to-rule that we experience. Again, we see that there is nobody on the Benches opposite from the Democratic Unionist Party — nobody. The one person who was there earlier has now absented themselves, maybe for good reason — I do not know. In the event that we get through the current negotiations and the institutions continue for their full mandate, the burden on the Bill Office will become more intense. We need to acknowledge that as we move forward. <BR /> <BR />The policy content of the document has been corroborated and advertised over the last couple of weeks.”
“I recognise the good authority shown by people in OFMDFM in their response to Mr Agnew's Bill. <BR /> <BR />I also acknowledge what Mr Agnew has done for the children's sector. As he said, this is their Bill. Whilst he is the sponsor, mover and architect in legislative terms, the ambition, need and policy intent in the Bill come from the children's sector, and we need to acknowledge that. <BR /> <BR />Mr Agnew also acknowledged the work of the Bill Office. It is always the case in the last year of a mandate that the Floor of the Assembly, or of any legislative Chamber in these islands, can get very busy and crowded, and that places particular burdens on the Bill Office.”
“I agree with the proposer's comments on OFMDFM. It was my concern that, once the Bill had been introduced, it would go into the bureaucratic system and either not emerge or emerge in a much-changed format. Mr Agnew will confirm the conversations that I had with him about my worst fears. Maybe tensions in the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister got in the way of the ambition and scale of the Bill, but, as Mr Agnew rightly pointed out, the experience of working with OFMDFM officials has been to work up this legislation and then get it over the line. It is not the failure of the office or its officials that Mr Agnew rightly made the decision to bring the Bill to the Chamber at this time, given the uncertainty around our political institutions.”
“<BR /> <BR />There are echoes in the Bill and in Steven Agnew's comments of something that the SDLP argued for and succeeded in securing in an earlier mandate: Executive programme funds. That model recognises that there are issues that, by their character, are either of such priority or diversity that you need an Executive programme approach as opposed to a single departmental approach. Given the clauses in the Bill, even the clauses about pooling resources, that demonstrates that there are models that can be applied to policy areas beyond the Bill for pooling resources and pooling approaches.”
“<BR /> <BR />In its very nature and character, the Bill makes a statement about our Government, which is that they are too dispersed and siloed in their approach and do not adopt a coherent, cohesive and integrated approach. If you look to the Government of Scotland — I always tend to do that — which is the best Government on these islands, as advertised by their success in the Westminster election and confirmed by their success in the campaign on Scottish independence, you will see that they have a fluid approach to Departments. They do not have a silo approach whereby Ministers work and do not relate as fully and effectively to other Ministers and Departments as they might. That is only one example of what we should learn from the Scottish Government about how they conduct ministerial and departmental work. It is a fluid approach.”
“As is always the case with a private Member's Bill, I acknowledge its primary sponsor, Steven Agnew. If you look at the narrative around private Member's Bills in the Chamber, you will see that it is arguably an area in which the Chamber has shown its greatest authority, or certainly a lot of good authority, when you consider the Bills that have been introduced or passed in this and previous mandates. This legislation is no different. Steven Agnew in particular, and all those who worked with him — I will refer to that in a second — need to be acknowledged and affirmed, not least in this vital policy area with this important part of our community.”
“I appreciate that. Given the pressure on indigenous wood production and supply, the scale of other countries' exports coming into the country, and the fact that all the estimates show that, very quickly, we will become more and more dependent on imports of hardwood, will the Minister outline — given the nature of the disease — the strategy to replant in order to reduce dependency on imports of hardwood?”
“Could the Minister be less coy and at least confirm that the SDLP has gone back to the Minister for Social Development since the meetings in June and has sought to meet with him in relation to a number of matters? <BR /> <BR />Given the scale of the Chancellor's 8 July Budget and its proposals on working tax credit, given that there are 160,000 people in Northern Ireland on working tax credit, which brings an income of £1 billion into Northern Ireland every year, and given that those proposals are going to impact adversely upon many of his own constituents as well as constituents of every MLA, does he not accept that, in order to deal with the welfare issue, the issue of working tax credits and its adverse impact on Northern Ireland has to be part of the negotiations that are meant to commence at 5.00 pm?”
“What is required is a political conversation, not an imposition by one party or one individual about the future of the Housing Executive. What is required is a full conversation with the unions and the staff, given the scale of their interest in the matter. What is required is that people do not crash on and bring housing back into a controversial political environment. If we can be judged by those standards, Mervyn Storey might do something that his predecessor singularly failed to do.”
“<BR /> <BR />Mr Douglas might be right in saying that, because of the advice of the Office for National Statistics and the Department of Finance and Personnel in April 2011, there was, for budgetary and statistical purposes, a split in the Housing Executive between regional services and landlord services. That is true, but that is far different from the fears that inform the content of this motion, namely that there is a much more fundamental reform going on above the heads of the political authorities that are needed to conclude the matter. <BR /> <BR />I will listen to the debate before we decide whether to support the motion, although we understand the fears and anxieties that have formed it. What is required is a multilateral and multiparty approach.”
“The comments referred to in respect of Mr McCausland's statement to the House and his conduct around Red Sky and all the rest of it created a sense of worst fears rather than what was necessary, as was touched on by the proposer of the motion, which was a multilateral conversation to scope where the Housing Executive should go on the far side of the June 2011 report. What happened was that somebody began to behave unilaterally when it was necessary, not least because of the charged nature of housing in the past and at the time and not least because it required a multilateral and multiparty approach.”
“The problem — I think that this is behind the motion — was that that report was being used, it seems to me, by certain vested interests to beat up on the Housing Executive rather than to recognise that the Housing Executive achieved greatly and that, because of a lot of issues, some of which were public at the time, it was now time for a process of reform. <BR /> <BR />It seems to me that the suspicion that informs the content of the motion arises from the fact that, after the 2011 report, there were people who went about their business to damage the Housing Executive, including, in my view, at a ministerial level.”
“<BR /> <BR />When I was Minister for Social Development — this was referred to in one of the previous contributions — it was time for a regular review of the Housing Executive, and, contrary to the advice of the officials, which is very often the measure of a Minister, I decided that there was a need for a fundamental review of the Housing Executive in order to recognise its enormous achievement and to recognise that, beyond its responsibility for 90,000 properties and its landlord function, it had developed a multitude of other functions and roles in housing policy, housing new build, community interventions and support of people, especially those in need. That is the report that was referred to and was concluded in June 2011.”
“There are occasions, especially involving elements in the DUP, when you wonder — this is very true of the Minister for Social Development before Mr Storey — if the scale and achievement of the Housing Executive is fully recognised, so I welcome Mr Douglas's unambiguous comments in that regard and the reference to the awarding of the freedom of Castlereagh borough to the Housing Executive.”
“I want to recognise one point of unanimity in the Chamber on the basis of what Mr Douglas and my colleague from west Belfast said, and that is that, contrary to some voices in the DUP, there appears to be an acceptance not just of the significant role of the Housing Executive over the years but of its historic role in addressing housing need and disadvantage in all parts of Belfast and across Northern Ireland.”
“Mindful that the Secretary of State announced over the weekend that the British Government would unilaterally legislate on welfare, and having regard to the reported comments of one of your officials in the 'Belfast Telegraph' over the summer, has London given any indication to you that the London Government might be minded to unilaterally legislate in respect of the legacy mechanisms, including the HIU, in the event that political progress is not made?”
“Further to your comments, will you review the Hansard record to determine whether action should be taken against any Members in the Chamber for words and terms of abuse that they used, even if, during the debate, no action was taken. I ask that you review Hansard to reflect on the words that were used to determine whether now, after the debate, some appropriate action should be taken that is consistent with the comments that you have just made.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to the comments that you have —”
“I can assure the Minister that this is the final time and is to confirm, if only for the final time, what our position is on Stormont House. It is that we said we would build upon the weak and rectify it, and we would implement the good. How much clearer can you be? We are not going to give to the London Government a blank cheque when it comes to the politics and the Budget of Northern Ireland.”
“I will just put two quick points to the Minister. If we were in a position where the Budget and welfare were agreed for 2015-16, that still would not answer the question on what the British Government mean by sustainability and what they meant in Stormont House when they said — this is in the document — that sustainable finances have to be agreed with the British Government. Given where we now are with a Conservative majority Government and what appears to be happening on 8 July, does it not cause you concern that it will be on their terms in a way that is damaging to our people?”
“The point was that, based on what London announced last week in respect of rail infrastructure in the Midlands and the report that they were forced to release last Thursday in respect of HS2 and its viability, I was putting up a marker that a question mark is beginning to arise — and it is a pretty big question mark — around HS2. That aside, you said last week that there may well be Barnett consequentials. My question is this: is there an understanding already, or growing, that there will be Barnett consequentials if HS2 goes forward in whatever shape it may go forward?”
“I understand the point that you made. It is a valid point. However, does the assertion that you just made not sit uncomfortably with the explicit words in the Stormont House Agreement? It refers to a "final balanced budget". That is your Budget, and we are opposing it, but it refers to a "final balanced budget". It does not say, "final balanced budget less £38 million".”
“It will need some lateral thinking, and it will need us to move beyond the boxes in which we have chosen to place ourselves, but we can resolve the welfare/Stormont House issue per se. However, it has to be resolved in the context of all of us recognising what 8 July will mean and how we will all need to respond to that.”
“They casually say to all the parties, "You knew what was coming, so you cannot protest." Nobody in the Chamber can say, with hand on heart, that what is coming on 8 July was what any of us conceived of even six months ago, never mind six weeks ago before the election. The scale, brutality and range of that, and the impact on the profile of our people, will be so devastating that we need a paradigm shift that recognises all of that and moves us on some way or another. <BR /> <BR />In doing so, I want to say very clearly that, although Minister Storey is away now, I spoke to him the other day, and we still want to resolve the immediate issue of welfare. In my view, it can be resolved.”
“There is a legal obligation to have an anti-poverty strategy, and government policy has to be measured against that strategy, but there is no strategy. What are the consequences and complications, if any, of all of that? <BR /> <BR />I will just say that all of us, which does not exclude me or the SDLP, are basically working in a false paradigm. It has become a matter of "Do welfare now", "Don't do welfare until 8 July", "The Budget does not mean much when it comes to in-year", or whatever. What we need is a paradigm shift in the conversation that we have, and then a paradigm shift that we can unite around that will get people to listen better than they do at the moment. That is in a context where I do not rely on the intentions or good faith of the British Government.”
“No such strategy has been adopted, and therefore the Northern Ireland Government has breached its legal obligation. <BR /> <BR />Subject to correction, from what I understand, the defence offered by the Government was that the Programme for Government is an anti-poverty strategy. I do not think that argument prevailed, but it says a lot about the character of the Government, and probably about the character of OFMDFM. It also says a lot about the character of the rest of us that a non-governmental human rights organisation was what brought that to a head, by going into court and exposing the truth of a failure to live up to a legal obligation. The question that arises from that, subject to what the judgement actually says, is how that then works itself through in relation to budget and welfare now.”
“What we know is that the CAJ won its legal challenge and the judicial review was granted, which Justice Treacy confirmed, despite a legal obligation that arises from the St Andrews Agreement and the legislation that gave effect to it. It is not some warm, meaningless phrase, or some aspirational declaration from a government or party. It is hard Westminster law, agreed in a hard negotiation in St Andrews which brought the institutions back from suspension. Justice Treacy said that there had been a failure to adopt a strategy:”
“Earlier, I raised with the Minister at Question Time the case that the High Court adjudicated on this morning. It was taken by the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) and was a judicial review (JR) on an anti-poverty strategy. It is still early. I do not think the written judgement is available; it might not be available for sometime. Therefore, we have to wait to see all that Mr Justice Treacy said in his judgement.”
“There is one point to make, more than any other. Given the scale and speed of what London is likely to do on 8 July, given that that may be of a character even greater than anyone could have reasonably thought would be the case at Stormont House or at any time since and up to the election, given what the Office for National Statistics outlined yesterday about income levels in the North and given its figures on the profile of our people across a whole range of categories, does that not warn us, eight days from 8 July, not to put all our eggs in the Chancellor at Westminster's basket? The consequence of that is that a lot of the eggs will be broken, and we will not have any leverage on all and any of that. <BR /> <BR />There are two final points to make.”
“Very quickly, our position on the Stormont House Agreement is that we said that we would acknowledge the good and build on and rectify the bad. That remains the case on all aspects of the agreement. That was the position that we adopted on the day and hour that it was signed, and it remains the position. You could argue that there is a tension between being in government and some of the narrative that I have put forward, but that is the character of political life, and you have to work it all through.”
“We have the worst figures for numbers of the population aged 16 to 64 with no qualifications and the worst figures for numbers of the population aged 16 to 64 with a qualification at NVQ level 4 and above. We have the worst income, we have the worst health, we have the worst figures when it comes to people with no qualifications and we have the worst figures when it comes to people with qualifications.”
“The Office for National Statistics confirmed yesterday that the average income per household in the North is £25,540, which is the least in all regions of the UK. The average is £32,000, with London at £39,000. Those are the published figures from the British Government. We have the least income, and the Office for National Statistics also confirmed that we have the worst relative low-income threshold for children anywhere in Britain and Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />We have the worst healthy life expectancy for males of any part of Britain and Northern Ireland. We have the worst life expectancy for females of any part of Britain and Northern Ireland.”
“I can see an answer, but why, if it is a final balanced Budget, would £38 million sit comfortably next to that? Secondly, is she not herself concerned that, beyond the £38 million, the residue of £30 million of unspent moneys for dealing with the past will go back to Treasury this year? Is that the integrity of the Stormont House Agreement? We do not think that it is, but I am prepared to hear the argument of the Minister. More important than any of that are the figures published yesterday by the Office for National Statistics, which Mrs Kelly referred to, and if they do not tell us that the scale and speed of austerity that London is proposing or is likely to propose on 8 July will ravage our people here, I do not know what will.”
“<BR /> <BR />I ask the Minister to respond, because she is on the inside track, having been, more than anyone else, the point person when it comes to corporation tax. Both in her previous role and in this role, the Minister has been the person who knows, if anyone does, the mind of the British Government and what they mean when they say that they will not devolve unless public finances are sustainable. What does she think that means? Is that acceptable? What is the character and content of all that come 8 July? <BR /> <BR />I asked her the following question the last day, I think. I do not know if I got an answer; I could not see it in Hansard. The relevant paragraph of Stormont House says that there will be a final balanced Budget by the end of January. How do you reconcile that with £38 million of in-year cuts?”
“<BR /> <BR />It is not just the issue of how many more redundancies there might be, voluntary or involuntary, but water charging and all those other ambitions of the British Government, which they have deployed across Britain, especially in England, and which they seek to deploy here, because that is what they mean by sustainable public finances. That is why the SDLP is being consistent in voting down this Budget, and there was a little hint from one of the parties at the meeting with the Secretary of State and the Irish Minister of Foreign Affairs that maybe the penny is beginning to drop and that the scale and speed of the 8 July measured against their understanding of sustainable public finances is something that we should very much caution ourselves against.”
“<BR /> <BR />Given the narrative, given the words, given the reference to paragraph 10, and given the five references to sustainable public finances in the last paragraph of the financial annex to Stormont House — words held dear by the British Government — is it not necessary, whilst I understand why people, and I will come back to that briefly later, want to deal with the issue of welfare, for all the parties, which are going to have the weight of the Budget cuts in the first two years of this Parliament, all in aid of sustainable public finances, to see the true lie of the land after 8 July?”
“If it is the case that the British Government on 8 July are going to tell us what the in-year welfare cuts will be — and that seems to be the shape of things to come — because the Secretary of State at the meeting last Thursday, whilst she made it clear that there may not be further in-year cuts to the Budget, although she was not certain about that, was less reassuring, indeed very unreassuring, when it comes to in-year cuts and welfare, the very issues that Mrs Kelly was referring to in respect to those on working tax credit.”
“<BR /> <BR />On the far side of 8 July, if rebalancing the economy as the British Government understand it and if sustainable public finances are their ambition, as they say repeatedly, does that mean, not 20,000 exiting voluntarily, but 20,000 more above that and, if you cannot fund it, then you have to do it involuntarily?”
“<BR /> <BR />In the view of the SDLP, when it is hard to interpret all these things, that is why the Secretary of State referred last week to paragraph 10 of the Stormont House Agreement rather than the financial annex, which deals with long- and medium-term reform in-year and over the coming years. In our view, that is the agenda of the British Government: when it comes to corporation tax and public finances in the North, they have ambitions for what they think is delivering sustainable finance and long-term sustainability. <BR />That is why the cautious and vigilant approach has to be to see what happens on 8 July.”
“That is five times in the space of half a paragraph — the Minister might be reading it at the moment — in less than a page that the British Government refer to corporation tax being devolved in the context of long-term sustainability, delivering sustainable finances and so on. <BR /> <BR />As Mark Durkan revealed, through questioning the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Mr Gauke, at a Committee meeting about corporation tax in February, the British Government are holding to sustainable public finances when it comes to the devolution of corporation tax. They have put it up in big lights that devolution will come if there are sustainable public finances.”
“This will be very relevant to the Minister, because she is the Minister who is now responsible for Finance but was previously responsible for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, and is and was a key person in respect of corporation tax. The last part of the annex to the Stormont House Agreement, which deals with financial issues on behalf of the British Government, is about corporation tax. The Minister referred to that last week when she said that it may or may not be managed in 2017. In the paragraph on corporation tax in the annex, the British Government put in not once, twice or three times but four times — sorry, five times — "long-term sustainability", "to deliver sustainable finances" and so on.”
“Of all the issues that are out there at the moment, why did the Secretary of State choose to raise paragraph 10? That is a question worth asking. What was she getting at with:”
“The second point that I want to make to the Minister — Mr Farry is away now, but Mr Murphy will remember this — is that, curiously, at the beginning of the meeting last week, the Secretary of State raised a number of matters that she thought that we needed to discuss. Those were the commission on flags, parades reform, inquests and paragraph 10. That is all she said: paragraph 10 of the Stormont House Agreement. What does paragraph 10 of the Stormont House Agreement refer to? Under the heading "Medium and longer term reform", paragraph 10 states:”