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 2 of 32.
“The technical and legal answer is that I and the Commission have to keep on the right side of the law and on the right side of the independence of the panel, especially in circumstances where the law says the panel is not subject to the direction or control of the Commission or Assembly. There has been history behind how we came to that place; we do not have to rehearse that history. As I said, though, in my opening remarks, the Commission, being made up of MLAs and representing the views of MLAs, is not detached from much of the sentiment of the Member.”
“The Act states explicitly that the panel is not subject to the direction or control of the Commission or the Assembly. In that regard, the panel enjoyed a very high threshold of independence, and we all live with the consequences of its recommendations. <BR /> <BR />The panel's tenure ended in July 2016, and the Commission is considering the most appropriate model for the future delivery of financial support to Members. All parties have been asked to contribute to what that might look like by, I believe, the end of January. I encourage all parties to make their contributions to what they believe the future review panel should look like.”
“I want to make it very clear to Members that the Commission is not detached, in any shape or form, from the concerns of Members arising from the independent review and the multiple consequences on our staff, current and previous, and all the other outworkings of the 2016 determination. <BR /> <BR />The Assembly established the Independent Financial Review Panel under the relevant legislation. The panel can also establish the criteria that must be met by each Member to recover the costs of employing support staff. This includes the criteria introduced in the 2016 determination that all support staff employed by Members must be engaged on a standard contract of employment. <BR /> <BR />The independence of the panel was established in the 2011 Act.”
“I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful, but that, I think, is the proper procedural and legal position.”
“I thank the Member for the supplementary. What is the same in both cases is that they revolve around staff and social media. What is different is the social media policy of the Northern Ireland Civil Service and its application to staff; and the social media policy of the Commission and its application to staff. You cannot compare apples and oranges. There was a different policy in place in respect of the case involving DSD, and the tribunal came to a certain judgement in that regard. We have a different policy, and, therefore, whatever happened in the other case does not necessarily, or at all, have reference back to the decision made by management and the Commission. Therefore, no precedent has been set by the tribunal case in as much as it does not apply to the practice of the Assembly and the decisions made in those cases.”
“The Assembly Commission is certainly aware of the decision in the recent case of McCrossan v the Department for Social Development. As the Member will be aware, and as I am sure Members will wish to respect, it is good and established practice that the Commission does not comment on personnel and human resource matters, so, given the question, it is not appropriate to discuss the particular facts of the cases raised. However, I can say to the Member that the Commission does not consider that the facts in the McCrossan case, which revolved around the use of social media, are comparable with the facts in the cases of the Assembly staff to which the Member refers. Consequently, it does not propose to review the cases.”
“I am sure that all members of the Commission will hear what the Member is saying. As I said, there has not been much evidence brought to the Commission that there is a big problem. Yes, we recognise that there are surges in use and that that might slow down connectivity, but, as far as I am aware and as far as I am informed by management in the Building, we are not aware that there is a major concern. However, the fact that four Members have asked questions this afternoon on the matter yet there were no supplementaries asked to the first question, Members must be flagging up the issue to the Commission, and I think that the Commission should look at it.”
“I will get back to the Member on what the cost might be. As I indicated in a supplementary answer, there is a provision in the current contract for further upgrade by 20 megabits to 100 megabits. I am sure that the cost is part of the contract, but I will get back to the Member on the precise amount.”
“In my lifetime on the Commission, which has not been very long, the matter has not been flagged up at Commission level. It may have been flagged up to management. If so, I will get a response to the Member. If it has not been flagged up to management or the Commission, I am sure that both of us will look at it.”
“If the Commission, informed by Members, determines that there is a need to go in that direction, I am sure that it will not be found wanting.”
“As I indicated in my initial reply, during peak hours and on sitting days, especially around lunchtime, when people are about the Building more, there can be in excess of 900 devices, ranging from traditional PCs to smartphones and other devices, accessing the Wi-Fi. That surge may lead to a reduction in speed. The Commission will keep that under review. The current contract allows for an increase of a further 20 megabits per second.”
“Information Systems (IS) Office staff proactively monitor the status of the Internet connection. At present, the Assembly Commission and the IS Office are not aware of any major problems with the Internet in the Building, although there are surges in use at various times; there can be about 900 different users on the Internet at one time in the Building, which might cause momentary or transitional difficulties. However, as far as the Commission and the IS Office are aware, there is no major reason for concern.”
“I thank the Member for his question. I hope that he does not press me on the technical details. In 2011, the Assembly Commission procured and installed its own dedicated Internet connection to provide better and more consistent access to the Internet for all Parliament Buildings users. The service was originally provisioned at 20 megabits per second. Due to increasing demand, it was increased to 40 megabits per second in February 2013. In September 2014, a further additional line was installed to provide resilience. At that time, the line speed was increased to 80 megabits per second overall. Since 2011, the service provided has been upgraded three times. <BR /> <BR />Since the new connection in 2014, the Assembly has benefited from significant additional bandwidth.”
“I agree with the First Minister's comments about nurturing and about the fact that, the more that we grow and escalate that intervention, the better that it will be. On early years and investing for the future, I note her comment about the 1,001-day strategy for Jersey. I note also the publication of a very ambitious programme for universal childcare by Katherine Zappone, the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. Will the Minister indicate whether any of that learning will be applied to our PFG, in which the ambition for funding for affordable childcare is, to put it mildly, quite moderate?”
“Do you have any intention to review that statement in the light of a report in the media today that details what appears to have happened earlier this year at the Policing Board? A panel of two people brought a proposal to the Policing Board whereby Charter NI would have received money to run a pilot scheme. It is not clear how Charter NI had knowledge of the work of the panel or how it was recommended for that pilot. In the light of what the Policing Board appears to have recorded, do you have any intention to reconsider the content of the second paragraph of your statement?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I refer you to the personal statement that you made to the House last week. The second paragraph stated that your involvement with Charter NI was:”
“I put down a marker that, if we think retrospective accountability will look identical to the other examples of accountability to the Policing Board, we might be disappointed. <BR /> <BR />The SDLP supports the LCM across the range of its content, including that which has arisen most recently on pardons for abolished offences. We should take any opportunity in the Assembly to right wrongs. That is what the proposal does with pardons for abolished offences. For that reason, we will oppose Mr Allister's amendment.”
“I am not going to challenge the words of this, but police officers from other jurisdictions in Britain who might come to Northern Ireland through their maritime activities will now retrospectively account to the Policing Board. Well, they might want to retrospectively explain, but I do not know if "retrospectively account" is the right phrase. Under Patten, the police legislation and the NCA, very rigorous requirements are laid down in terms of what accountability looks like, and retrospective accountability for what a police officer might have done in Northern Ireland is different, in my view, from the thresholds that apply now in respect of the NCA and in respect of the PSNI to the Policing Board.”
“<BR /> <BR />However, just as the Committee has been attentive and vigilant — I also have to acknowledge the work of the Committee staff, and the Clerk in particular, in all of this — this does tell the Assembly to be very vigilant when it comes to LCMs. We had an unfortunate experience in the Chamber this morning where an LCM was pushed through, the consequences of which I do not believe the Assembly fully understand, about how third-level education is being fundamentally reconfigured. Therefore we should be very mindful about LCMs. The conduct of the Justice Committee, and the work of the Chair in particular, in this matter is worthy of further consideration. <BR /> <BR />The third point is that an interesting concept is now being created.”
“This is a personal view, and I was on the Justice Committee for only a very short period of months, but the Justice Committee in the last mandate, in my view, in my experience and from what other people said, when it came to the conduct of Committees, actually fulfilled higher levels and thresholds when it came to calling to account Ministers and public policy generally. That was a recognition of the membership and the Chair and Deputy Chair of the last Committee. I have to say that my experience in the short life of this Committee is that those thresholds and standards are again being upheld. That is good for the life of the Assembly and good for the life of the Justice Committee.”
“I would like the Minister to give that reassurance, to ensure that, at departmental level, there is no lack of understanding as to the thresholds that were established. They should be jealously guarded, otherwise we will be in a much more severe place. <BR /> <BR />It may be that this particular instance about the accountability of police officers outside Northern Ireland for their activities here might not arise very much, but once bitten, twice shy. Let us ensure that there is no repetition of the failure of management, on the one hand, and, hopefully, on a much worse level, the failure to recognise how these things should be conducted when it comes to these matters. <BR /> <BR />I also want to be fair to the Chair, the Deputy Chair and the Committee.”
“<BR /> <BR />Is there any failure of understanding at departmental level that, when a police officer or a person with police powers is operating in Northern Ireland, be it the PSNI, the NCA or police officers from another police service in Britain, there must never be any doubt about accountability to the Policing Board? A doubt was created in that regard by this particular LCM. I think that this is fundamental, and it needs to be fundamental going forward because, in the view of the SDLP, accountability around policing has been degraded over a period of time. We do not need to see any more degradation when it comes to the authority of the Policing Board and accountability for police actions in Northern Ireland.”
“The reason why I am concerned about the wider, deeper issue that may or may not be advertised by what happened in this case is that it is not so long ago that a lot of time and effort was engaged in trying to rectify the false approach that was being adopted by the Home Office and some in the Department of Justice when it came to accountability for the National Crime Agency. It was only in February 2014 that that matter was corrected in the right thresholds of accountability when it came to the conduct of the NCA. Yet it appears that, a short time later, the Department of Justice was making proposals that did not give due authority and recognition to the role of the Policing Board in the conduct of police officers in Northern Ireland. I would like the Minister to respond to that issue.”
“What worries me, whatever the detail of how it was managed at Department level in response to the probing of the Committee, is the wider issue of the understanding at Department level of the requirements for policing accountability in Northern Ireland. I would be more alarmed by a systemic problem than by the management problem that was clearly identified in how this was approached by the Department. When there is a management problem, you can put in place processes and tick boxes to make sure that it is managed properly. However, if there is a cultural problem — a failure to understand that the actions of anybody with police powers in Northern Ireland, besides the PSNI, should be accountable to the Policing Board — that is a much deeper issue.”
“I apologise to the Chair of the Committee and to Mr Allister: I was called away to an unscheduled meeting and missed both their contributions. I did, however, hear the Minister's contribution prior to Question Time. I apologise if I cover ground that has been addressed by others. <BR /> <BR />From what I have heard, questions have been raised, and rightly so, about the management of this business, on both PSNI and Department of Justice sides. My view is that what may be revealed by how the Department managed this is a failure of understanding at Department level of the thresholds and requirements of Patten as regards accountability for police actions in the North.”
“is the benchmark of this legislation, that is going to work itself through in the outworkings of the legislation. If a consequence of that will be a separation of regime between teaching and research, and research will be directed more and more in one direction, towards those who are most compliant with a Tory Government agenda, I think that we should be cautious in what we are doing today. <BR /> <BR />I think that the wiser course of action is to stand back for a moment. I say to Sinn Féin that maybe this deserves a little bit more interrogation. I say to the Minister that, if Jo Johnson is saying that this is the biggest change since the 1990s, should we not at least take the time to work through the impact of the biggest change in higher education since the 1990s? For those reasons, I urge the Minister not to proceed with the LCM.”
“Are we saying that to ourselves and to our higher education institutions, which may be backing this but have been a bit coy about it? Have you heard any big campaign from the higher education leaderships in Northern Ireland saying that this is essential to our future? No, it seems that they are worried about the downside rather than anticipating much of an upside. <BR /> <BR />If a Minister in London saying:”
“Somebody who was at that meeting said to me, "This is what Jo Johnson said: 'High-quality institutions are complaint institutions'. Is it not that that is what this LCM and the London legislation are about?". It is about saying to higher education institutions, "You're going to be compliant. We are going to create a licensing regime that splits research and teaching and says to those who are compliant and do the will of the London Government, 'This is what we want education to look like. Comply and what will happen is that you will get your money'". That is what Jo Johnson could have been saying last week when he said:”
“I think that we should be vigilant in subscribing to any LCM, whatever its nature, when the justification is, on the one hand, that that is what they are doing in England and, on the other hand, that we are worried about reputational impact. Whilst the latter is a good argument, the first is a bad argument. The second is a good argument because we do have to be worried about the reputational impact on Northern Ireland if we do not do x, y or z, but it is not a very strident or substantial material argument to say, "Because we might dig ourselves into a deeper hole, we have to try to get into a smaller hole". To me, that seems to be what it is about. <BR /> <BR />I want to say a second thing about Mr Jo Johnson, who is the architect of all this. It is my understanding that, last week at the same conference, he made the following comment:”
“Just think about that for a second. It really is a strange political statement to make that it is an English framework designed for England. <BR /> <BR />On the far side of that, the Minister's argument was that the TEF would be signed up to:”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. <BR /> <BR />I think that the Minister listened very intently to what Mr Farry said and rightly so, because the Minister has an enormous range of responsibilities, and the former Minister had bespoke responsibilities for higher education. Therefore, his contribution was interesting, thorough and worth listening to, as I certainly did. It really is a bit of a giveaway, I think, for a Minister to come to the House arguing for an LCM with the justification that it is:”
“Is it not curious that the Minister, certainly so far, has not said, when he asked me to give way in order to answer the second question, namely, when London comes looking for sustainable public finances for the next 18 months, where this Minister's responsibility is when the pressure comes on tuition fees? Will you say to London that you will not go to the Executive to barter tuition fees in order to get the devolution of corporation tax? Will you put that on record today, if you are prepared to put the other matter on the record today?”
“First, I am surprised that the Minister said that I was not addressing the contents of the LCM. It was the Minister who started to talk about tuition fees before anybody else in the Chamber did. They have been speaking about it elsewhere, but they had not spoken about it today. The Minister led this debate, and he put on the record that he had no plans in respect of tuition fees, which people to my right, and elsewhere, have taken reassurance from. At least we were able to extract more than that from the Minister today, when he said that he would not rely upon the outworking of this LCM to justify going to the Executive in respect of tuition fees.”
“It means sustainable public finances, and sustainable public finances might well be them saying to our Executive, "Get the issue of tuition fees sorted out". <BR /> <BR />I accept what the Minister has said. I do not think the Minister, in any shape or form, is saying anything cryptic when he says, "No plans", but let us go into this with our eyes wide open. Let us look at the reality of the politics and the public financial debate over the next 18 months, and let us be cautious and work out where all this is going to end up. It may end up with London saying, "Stand and deliver", on public finances in order to get corporation tax, and what does that mean for tuition fees? How does this LCM and those new structures work into that scenario? I will give way to the Minister.”
“I would be less inclined to rely upon the Government here, because when it came to the equally controversial issue of welfare reform, the London Government were able to persuade this Government to hand over welfare reform to London, the consequence of which is that welfare benefits have been frozen and, as we see, inflation will rise over the next number of years and the value of the welfare pound in our people's pockets will be going down. Yes, I would rely upon Scotland to face down London, and I would be a bit more cautious about this Government facing down London when the pressure comes on, as it will come on, over the next 18 months. What are the terms for the devolution of corporation tax? The terms are what you have signed up to in Stormont House.”
“I think that the Member will know what my answer is going to be. First, for their own reasons — they may have been wiser than us, but we will see about that in the fullness of time — Scotland did not ask for the devolution of corporation tax. Through the Smith commission, they asked for much else, but they did not ask for that. Frankly, if I were to rely upon any Government — I do not like the use of the word bullying, but to use the word bullying — to face down London when it comes to being bullied on tuition fees, I would rely upon Scotland.”
“I will give way in a second. There is a scenario on the far side of this LCM, which is that it will be used by people in London, including the Chancellor, given what he said in his Budget statement last week, to put pressure on in respect of tuition fees. Why should we not also be more worried about that? Have some of the leadership of our universities not said that they want tuition fees away up beyond what they are at the moment, including touching on £10,000 a year? <BR /> <BR />I will give way to Mr Farry and then to the Minister.”
“It was only last week that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget statement, referred to the fact that, before corporation tax is devolved, Northern Ireland's finances have to be put on a sustainable basis through a reform package agreed between our Executive and the London Government. <BR /> <BR />In my view, the risk of this LCM is that London will say to the Executive that they will have to rely on the outworking of the LCM to deal with tuition fees because they want that to be dealt with in order to put, as they see it, public finances on a sustainable footing, on the far side of which they might devolve corporation tax.”
“So, Minister, will you say that you will not rely, in any shape or form, even when the universities are on your back, as they will be, on the outworkings of this LCM, which is likely to be passed, when it comes to tuition fees? <BR /> <BR />In my view, this is how this will all work out. In the annex to the Stormont House Agreement, there is reference to the fact that, before corporation tax is devolved, the London Government have to agree with the Northern Ireland Government about a package of reforms to put public finances on a sustainable footing. That is what it says. We are not very far from the devolution of corporation tax.”
“However, I want this Minister to say that, if the LCM is passed, he will not rely on what comes out of the TEF and what we are consenting to in order to go to the Executive to say that we have to do something about tuition fees. That is what I want the Minister to say. <BR /> <BR />Whatever is or is not the answer to Mr Farry's comments about what we do or do not do on tuition fees, I want the Minister to say that he will not rely on the outworkings of the LCM in order to go to the Executive on tuition fees. That is what the Minister should be saying. He should not be saying that he has no plans. He should not be using warm words, which are useful in themselves but not definitive in practice.”
“When the Assembly hears somebody with the name Johnson with a Tory manifesto saying something like that, it should be very vigilant about what it subscribes to. It does not mean that you end up not subscribing to it, but you make sure that you are very vigilant as you go down that road. <BR /> <BR />The Minister says that he has no plans on tuition fees arising from this legislation. However, in my view, this is how it is going to work. The Minister will comment on it, but he said that he had no plans. I am sure that most Ministers would not travel much further than saying that they had no plans about what might happen with future policy.”
“Yes, Joe Johnson won the 1986 World Snooker Championship, and it was a great night, as some of us will recall. <BR /> <BR />Jo Johnson is the Minister who has most responsibility for this legislation in Westminster. He is the lesser-known brother of Boris Johnson, which I did not know until the last few days. I am told that, last week, at a conference in England, Jo Johnson said that this was the most significant higher education legislation since the 1990s.”
“I will start my comments by asking, "Who is Jo Johnson?". Mr Farry referred to Mr Johnson because he knows who he is. I am sure that the Minister and the Chair of the Committee know who Jo Johnson is, but who is Jo Johnson?”
“I am sure that Mr Allister feels very disappointed; he may have another go later. <BR /> <BR />No, we are not going to withdraw our amendment. Why should we? The Minister and DUP Members have made it crystal clear — they have put it up in lights tonight — what their ambition is for policing, justice, equality and rights oversight.”
“Will you give way? You said that nobody is talking about slash and burn. Mr Poots said that he would like to see very few ALBs as part of the outcome of the review. How do you reconcile those two points?”
“Will the Minister give way for one final time?”
“I thank the Minister for giving way and for beginning to share his thinking on these matters, but can I press him further? Do you accept that, when it comes to any review of criminal justice, equality, rights or policing ALBs and structures, you should proceed with great caution and tread warily, given the importance of that architecture and those functions to the new order of politics? Do you accept that those organisations deserve that sort of treatment in any review that you might bring forward?”
“The point is that, if you do not fund the arm's-length bodies to do their job properly in crucial areas of public policy like equality, rights, policing and the oversight of criminal justice, we know from our history and experience that that will not be a healthy situation.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Given that Mr Stalford said explicitly on the record in Hansard that nothing was off limits in the review and that that, for him, included human rights, equality, policing and criminal justice oversight organisations, are you not concerned that, behind the motion and behind the words, there is a wolf in sheep's clothing in that they have ambitions that maybe you should be very concerned about?”
“Can I just probe the Member a bit further? If he thinks that there should be a review, does he believe that the architecture in respect of criminal justice oversight, equality rights, and policing are areas where we need to tread with the utmost caution, or does he think that they are up for grabs as well?”