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 19 of 32.
“The flaw in some of the comments that are coming from the other side of the House is simply this: in the margins of a meeting with the Secretary of State last week, I asked a senior official whether he could give us any guarantees that there were not more in-year cuts coming regarding the Budget and welfare, and he did not give me a very convincing reply. We are being told that 8 July has little immediate relevance for the 2015-16 Budget. That is like saying that the £38 million of cuts two weeks ago has no immediate relevance to the 2015-16 Budget, when clearly it does. The logic of that must be that, come 8 July, anybody who says that there are not going to be in-year cuts as a consequence of the 2015-16 Budget when it comes to welfare and our Budget is taking a leap into the unknown.”
“In any case, the point that we have been making on the issue of credibility is that one of our points of leverage upon London is where we are in respect of Budget and welfare. You cannot divorce the current Budget and welfare situation from what is going to happen on 8 July, just as you could not divorce the current Budget situation from the £38 million of cuts that the Chancellor announced two weeks ago. These things have to be dealt with in all their elements. This stand-alone approach gets in the way of the best and most coherent approach.”
“Is it not strange, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we get an invite even though we do not have a Budget for 2015-16 and we say, "Well, we will not deal with that invite until we deal with the Budget issue"?”
“Why have you, as DUP Ministers in Government and at First Minister level, not said, "We will go now in advance of 8 July"? Given the scale of what was outlined in the various briefings and in the 'The Sunday Times' article yesterday, why is that the one thing that you do not seem to want to be able to do?”
“Is it not a curious point that we are prepared to invite all the Administrations here for a quadrilateral, the Minister is prepared to go to Wales to meet the Welsh Administration and John Swinney is prepared to come here in August to discuss all these matters, but the First Minister has yet to confirm that he is prepared to sit down with the three Administrations and go to London with them? If you are prepared to work with all these people, you should work with all these people in all the necessary configurations.”
“On that basis, can I draw the conclusion that the First Minister has now replied to the letter that he received suggesting that the three devolved Administrations should go to London together in respect of their future Budget proposals? It seems that you are prepared to meet John Swinney and the Welsh Government, which is great, but that you are silent or neutral on the three Administrations going to London together now.”
“— the DUP is taking a go-it-alone approach in this devolved arrangement compared with those of Scotland and Wales, is there some understanding between Peter Robinson and the Prime Minister arising from the so-called routine meeting that they had in the House of Commons after the election? Rather than going it alone, why would you not want to go together to try to make some impression on the two men who announced yesterday what their ambitions are for 8 July?”
“Whatever people might say about the integrity of the Stormont House Agreement, does that not send a warning to us? That is why I have to say to the Minister that, rather than going with the other devolved Administrations, the go-it-alone approach that seems to have been adopted by the DUP is a flawed approach. It begs this question: if —”
“That is the very point that Mrs Kelly made. They also said:”
“That has to be the conclusion from reading the article by George Osborne and Iain Duncan Smith in 'The Sunday Times' yesterday. Remember that, only three weeks ago, 'The Sunday Times' or 'The Observer' said that George Osborne and Iain Duncan Smith were at loggerheads over the scale and speed of austerity in welfare. Yesterday, they came together to say that they had sorted out their differences and:”
“I will in a second. <BR /> <BR />He told the Institute of Directors (IOD) that he would cut early to make it smoother later, and why would he not? This is a man who is now not just Chancellor of the Exchequer but competing to become the next leader and Prime Minister. That was confirmed by what I hear was a very good performance in Prime Minister's Question Time last week. Part of his motivation will be to see through austerity. Then, on the far side of that, when he has done all that harm, when the economy is going to improve and there is a balanced Budget, he can ride into the glory of becoming the next Prime Minister. A personal agenda is informing what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is doing, and it is much more than the dogma of the Tories; it is also about his personal ambition.”
“Less than two days later, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced what he was going to do, we did know. Similarly, he is not being coy about what he plans to do in the emergency Budget on 8 July and thereafter.”
“If you check the record, you will find that the SDLP, over a series of debates last year and this year, said that, post-election, the London Government would replay what they did following the May 2010 election, with the emergency Budget in June 2010, which was the first and immediate phase of austerity. We said that that was going to happen again. I think that what Minister Storey was saying was that what we then anticipated happening, as the Hansard record will show, is what has come to pass. <BR /> <BR />The Minister of Finance and Personnel will remember that, at the last meeting of parties and Governments, when the Secretary of State was asked, on a Tuesday at about 5.00 pm, whether there would be in-year cuts, she said, "I don't know".”
“That is not plucking figures out of the air: those are the comments and narrative of accepted experts. Whether we agree with them or not, we should at least listen to them because they are anticipating the world that is about to dawn after 8 July, and that leads me to the next point that I want to make. I met the Minister for Social Development in the corridor earlier. I do not want to misquote him, so I need to be careful, but, basically, he said, "Well, you called that one right when it came to what the London Government were about to do in respect of austerity".”
“Matthew Reed, the chief executive of the Children's Society, said:”
“To conclude that matter, let us step back from what Mr McCrea or I say. The director of evidence and impact at the National Children's Bureau said:”
“I am sorry; it was the Minister of Finance and Personnel. However, she was curiously silent about the figures that have been produced by the OFMDFM and IFS study about absolute poverty and the fact that absolute poverty in Northern Ireland will be at 30·4% by 2020. That is before George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Iain Duncan Smith do their worst, as they were advertising in 'The Sunday Times' yesterday in a joint article in which they made up over their recent dispute about the scale, timing and speed of welfare reform. I will come back to that point, but I will give way to Mr McCrea.”
“I will in a second. Earlier in the debate, someone read into the record how people in Northern Ireland were feeling better; their general well-being — I think that that is the phrase that was used — was better.”
“I am not plucking figures out of the air. I am relying on an analysis that was produced by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), which happens to be the organisation that is employed by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to do the exact same analysis of child poverty in Northern Ireland. You might think that the IFS plucks figures out of the air. I think that, in the general world, including the insider world of analysing what is going on in the economy, the Institute for Fiscal Studies is well regarded. I would suggest to the Member that, to portray me or the IFS, which I rely on, as plucking figures out of the air, is stretching a point and is bound to be stretching the evidence base that the IFS deals with.”
“In a second. That should require us all to reboot our thinking when it comes to the issues of welfare and the Budget over the next number of days. I will give way.”
“Here we are, in a situation in which we are being told that we should do welfare and do a Budget in the context in which it is the children who are beginning to suffer most because of doing a Budget and welfare on Tory terms.”
“The parallel is happening in Britain, where the Child Poverty Action Group and the Institute for Fiscal Studies are agreed that progress in reducing child poverty in Britain is now going into reverse and that the cause of that is the bedroom tax and benefit cuts. That is in advance of what is expected to happen on 8 July and thereafter over the next number of years with welfare, benefits and budgets. <BR /> <BR />The number of families in Britain whose income is below 60% of the UK average — the definition of relative poverty — has increased between 2013 and last year, and it is because of the bedroom tax and cuts. If that is the case in Britain, there are probably multiples of that in Northern Ireland.”
“That is why the issue of children should be front and centre in our consideration of the Budget and welfare and where we are. I say all that because it seems that, on Thursday, London is going to publish its latest child poverty assessment, and some of that started coming out over the weekend. <BR /> <BR />The Institute for Fiscal Studies is, by and large, pretty well regarded. It is so well regarded that, when it comes to child poverty in Northern Ireland, it is the organisation that OFMDFM rely on to choose its statistics, some of which have suggested, as I have said before, that absolute and relative child poverty in Northern Ireland, far from being down to 10% by 2020, will be 31% and 34% respectively by 2020.”
“<BR /> <BR />I want to deal with a second issue, which is to suggest that the context of what is happening on the Budget and welfare has changed even in the last number of days. There were reports over the weekend in anticipation of a document being published by London in respect of child poverty. The Minister is a mother with a young family, and I am an older father with a young family, one of whom was nine yesterday — my older daughter was nine yesterday. The reason why we do all of this is, ultimately, because of our own and other children. That is why we do this. Maybe some others are driven by ambition and careerism or whatever, but I think that, around the Chamber, we do this because of our children and we try to make better or make gentle the life of the world in respect of what they might inherit from us.”
“I have read them into the record previously, and they are a 2010 Irish Academy of Engineering study, a 2012 report by John Bradley on cross-border economic renewal, and a document by Michael D'Arcy on significant possibilities for North/South synergy. All those documents are in the public domain, all of them have been published and all are a pathway to shape this island in the context of what London says it will do. I will come back to that. There is fertile ground if we just open up our minds to go there, rather than sticking to the dogma that London has a mandate, which is to do what they will do in the autumn and on 8 July, and that we have to swallow that. If we do not think laterally, irrespective of the issue of London, we are letting our people down.”
“Let us put this on the agenda. I ask the Minister to support the SDLP in putting a specific item on the agenda in respect of the capital investment plan. No more meaningless phrases about North/South being taken forward post-Stormont House review, which was never published, never mind finished. Let us have some hard, concrete outcomes and develop that conversation. <BR /> <BR />If the Minister is prepared to look at them — I am only suggesting it, because people are asking for remedies — I refer her to some documents. I will send her those documents, because I will not have time to read them into the record now. Those are a series of documents that scoped out North/South.”
“If we do not draw the conclusion from what Mark Durkan did in 2006 or whenever it was, and try to do the same for 2016 and beyond, then we are missing something. <BR /> <BR />There is an arrangement between Dublin and London in respect of the bailout. I am sure there are contractual and other treaty obligations. Let us remember that one of the reasons why London did it was because their biggest trading partner is the Republic, that our biggest trading partner is the Republic, and that their biggest trading partner is us. If that totality of relationships — where have we heard that phrase before? — does not drive an agenda when we are in this space at the moment, then we are missing something. <BR /> <BR />I go further: there is a meeting on Thursday, chaired by the two Governments, with the parties to review the Stormont House Agreement.”
“It is curious that the Minister relies on someone speaking from the Back Benches in that regard. I will make two points in respect of that. <BR /> <BR />The first is that you would get no dispute from me that you should be hard-nosed with the Irish Government when it comes to financial commitments to the people of Northern Ireland. That is what Mark Durkan did with Brian Cowen. For the first time ever in a national development plan, he built into its architecture a commitment to capital investment in the North. That was a pretty hard-nosed negotiation, because it had not happened before, and we should have it again now so that it gets tied down and in a positive and constructive way we make it difficult for the South to say no. They are beginning to scope out where they go over the next decade in capital investment.”
“<BR /> <BR />Surely that should be exhausted as an opportunity and a potential. Otherwise, we are saying that we have to accept what London is doing in respect of budgets, even though we do not know the scale of it and even though it is going to be immense. The consequences of that will be felt over the next three or four years, yet we are not going to exhaust the possibility of what Dublin might do. If I were the Minister, I would be pretty hard-nosed about it.”
“To borrow a phrase, I think the Minister is bowling the ball short, because the circumstances in the South are clearly in transition from where they were even a year or two ago to where they might be over the next two or three years. At the same time, London is about to announce on 8 July the scale of the next phase of austerity, and then more of it in the autumn statement. Irrespective of Europe — and I will come back to that in a second — is it not as obvious as the nose on your face that we should now try more and more to tie down the Dublin Government on their commitments? Those are commitments that they had before, that they say they have now, and that will potentially increase in terms of the needs of the island of Ireland in the north-west — in Northern Ireland, Donegal and neighbouring counties.”
“Mark Durkan did not make a phone call; he sat down with Brian Cowen and negotiated a dedicated chapter — I think it was chapter 16 — of the national development plan back then.”
“If you insist that Mr Hands told you last week, as you advised the House, that there is no more money from London, there is an obligation to scope out all the opportunities that there are or might be for new money. If the Irish Government, in advance of the next election and of the next Irish Government, are beginning to scope out a capital investment plan, do we not learn from the past and draw conclusions from what London is saying and look innovatively and creatively at where that takes us? <BR /> <BR />I know where Peter Robinson wants to take North/South issues, because he once infamously said that, if he wants to do stuff on a North/South basis, he makes a phone call.”
“The Minister might also be aware that, in a previous version of the capital investment plan, which was then known as the national development plan, Mark Durkan and Brian Cowen negotiated a dedicated chapter on infrastructure development in the North. The consequence of that negotiation between Mark Durkan and Brian Cowen is the road that crosses the border south of Newry and north of Dundalk and over other places. So my question is this: given that Dublin is now, for want of a better phrase, trying to reinvest in its economy and people because of the state of the national finances, is it not time to have the full conversation with it on the national development plan, or the capital investment plan? Minister, it is quite a simple point.”
“It needs to be narrowed, but it needs to be narrowed around three pillars. Those three pillars are: the best amendments that came out of the Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage, honourable implementation of what was agreed before and at Stormont House, and recognising, which I will outline further, that 8 July is a shadow on the Chamber and the lives of people of Northern Ireland that it is negligent to disregard. It seems to be the DUP's intent to disregard it, but I will come back to that. <BR /> <BR />I have a question for the Minister. She knows that the Irish Government are producing a capital investment plan stretching from, I think, 2016 to 2022, but I will stand corrected on that.”
“Far from me being mischievous, I think that the Minister is being selective and partial. New thinking does not always require new money. Indeed, in the circumstances that we face, a lot of new thinking might have very little money to follow it. Some of our amendments had no financial consequences, but still that new thinking was blocked by petitions of concern and votes from Sinn Féin on each and all of them. Even as a minimum, that which costs nothing or which is moderate in its cost is new thinking, never mind the broader proposals from the Greens and ourselves. <BR /> <BR />Without breaking any great confidences, because I do not think that there are any, we have gone back to those. I went back to them last week with Minister Storey to try to narrow the difference on welfare reform.”
“I thank the Member for his question, but I think that we must be sitting in different Chambers. I remember the SDLP, the Green Party and the Ulster Unionists proposing a series of amendments at Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage of the Welfare Reform Bill in January and February. I remember your party signing a petition of concern — and you would probably have had to sign it, if I could recall that for you — to block all the new thinking. Before they were even debated in the Chamber, or before any of us — Steven Agnew, Dolores Kelly, me or anybody — had opened our mouths, you and your colleagues had signed a petition of concern the previous day to block them all. You asked me this: where is the new thinking? You and your party blocked all the new thinking even before a word was uttered.”
“<BR /> <BR />This is my question to the Minister: given that it seems to be the DUP's position that the will of London will prevail, that there is worse austerity to come, and that we will just have to pull down the shutters and deal with it the best way we can — part of which is to accept welfare and do the Budget — then I ask the Minister to listen to the new thinking and brave politics to which her colleague Alastair Ross refers. This is where we now have to think outside the box even though we have lost multiple opportunities over the years to scope out all this.”
“In this regard, I want to go back to, I think, the very first speech after the Minister's, which was from Alastair Ross. There are always moments in debates when a thoughtful contribution is made and when concepts are raised that actually deserve a response and are worth exploring further. He chided Mr Maginness for suggesting that he was conservative in his approach to other matters. Then, he began to talk about new thinking and brave politicians. He said it with regard to the justice system and he mentioned the fact that he and the Deputy Chair of the Committee for Justice will be going to the Netherlands to look at, I presume, models of new thinking and brave politics. I thought it was an interesting contribution, because I think that new thinking and brave politics are required.”
“That is playing upon people's worst fears, when what is needed is responsible leadership. That is the ultimate indictment of the contribution that was made by Mr Farry in this debate. Could I also just correct him? I remember the meeting we had with our Minister in the moments, and in the hour, before the Executive meeting last November at which the draft Budget, that Mr McGuinness said was the best deal possible, was forced through. I remember the conversation we had with Minister Durkan. Any suggestion that nothing other than opposing that draft Budget was the approach taken by Minister Durkan and the party is inconsistent with that meeting and those facts. <BR /> <BR />I want, however, to try to map some way through the current difficulty we have.”
“Go and tell people in the west of the city of Belfast or in the north-west of Northern Ireland that the circumstances that they face in respect of poverty, lack of work, or the fact that Catholic male long-term unemployment is virtually unchanged in 20 or 30 years and that Protestant male long-term unemployment is now beginning to get to the levels experienced by the Catholic male long-term unemployed people. Is that the consequence of this current Budget debate or is it the consequence of the failure of politics to do what is necessary for those who are most in need, whether they are Catholic or Protestant, unionist or nationalist or in west Belfast or the north-west? Do not tell people that somehow the consequences of this Budget debate are the reasons why children are in poverty and people are out of work.”
“Yes, joining the euro. If that comes in the context of the democratic reunification of our country, in which circumstances we may all be part of the euro, I think that it would be to the benefit of our businesses, our farmers, our trade and the growth of our economy. <BR /> <BR />The fundamental flaw in Mr Farry's contribution was that, somehow, the Budget and welfare are the cause of every child in poverty and every person without a job. That was the essence of Mr Farry's analysis: that, because of the current situation, we face "financial chaos" and "punishing the people". Those are all his words. <BR /> <BR />As a consequence, in my words, every child in poverty and every person without a job is a consequence of the Budget debate that we are having. What a flawed and false analysis.”
“I hope that, in the fullness of time, one of the grounds on which we might differentiate ourselves from Greece will be that we will not get close to exiting the European Union and that we will get closer to joining the euro in order to —”
“No, it certainly is not far behind Greece. We are not, unfortunately —”
“Greece in the international understanding of what was going on. <BR /> <BR />I wonder whether the Minister has a reply to that. Does the Minister, who seemed to be generous in her praise of what Mr Farry said, believe that Northern Ireland is not far behind Greece when it comes to the politics and the issues that we face?”
“<BR /> <BR />If we are to get through all the multiple problems that we have, be it flags, parades, the past or any other significant area of public policy, and if we are to have the transformative politics that a DUP Member referred to earlier, it will be by people coming back to radical middle politics, because that is the way in which we will be able to sustain and change this place in a fundamental way. <BR /> <BR />It was, frankly, a comment that was as preposterous as it was ludicrous as it was ill-judged when, somehow, Mr Farry compared Northern Ireland to Greece. He said:”
“That is the fundamental fault line in our politics, and all the disputes that we have, be it on the past, parades, flags, the Budget or any other significant aspect of political policy, are because there is a middle-ground agreement, now led and populated by two parties, one of which wants Northern Ireland on its own terms, which, too often, are the terms of the past, and elements in Sinn Féin do not want Northern Ireland to work at all and have a project to try to prove that.”
“If Northern Ireland, in all its forms, is to prosper in respect of welfare, the economy or any other matter, radical middle politics have to prosper. If there is any risk to our politics — I think that that risk is exaggerated, and I will come back to that later — it is because middle politics are in jeopardy. In my view, they are in jeopardy because the DUP wants Northern Ireland on its terms, and that is not middle politics, and it may be that there are elements in Sinn Féin, perhaps not in this Chamber, who want to prove that Northern Ireland does not work at all.”
“If I were in the Alliance Party's shoes and those of its supporters tonight, I would begin to wonder what precisely its understanding of core concepts and core values is when it comes to the politics of the North and the institutions of government that we share. <BR /> <BR />He was also really quite missing the wood for the trees when he made the argument that power-sharing could be in jeopardy because of the Budget and welfare situation that we face. That does miss the wood for the trees, because the fundamental problem that we are working through at the moment is that the Good Friday Agreement is an agreement about radical middle politics.”
“I cannot understand why we entered into so many years of political discourse only for somebody to take the principle of consent, as Mr Farry did in his contribution, mangle it and move it away from the principle of consent when it comes to the constitutional position and somehow make it mean that it is an absolute, and that we have to consent to that which London requires when London insists and imposes its will on us. If I were a supporter of the Alliance Party, when it comes to the issue of consent, I would begin to worry about its politics, because, unfortunately, this Chamber has yet to consent to equal marriage. Based on Mr Farry's understanding of the issue of consent, because we do not agree, we have to not continue the argument for marriage equality.”
“I am a bit cautious about relying on some analysis that emanates from the Labour Party when it comes to the politics of this place, both now and in the past. <BR /> <BR />Mr Farry, of course, got into a very muddled place, because he relies on the principle of consent that is in the Good Friday Agreement on the constitutional position of Northern Ireland and elevates that principle of consent so that, somehow, as a consequence of the Good Friday Agreement, we have to consent to every chapter and word that emanates from any British Government and any British Government Minister when it comes to policies, practice and funding in the North.”