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 20 of 32.
“When you analyse what Mr Farry, Mrs Cochrane and Mr Dickson say in the Chamber on issues of the Budget and welfare, you see that the Alliance Party is as close to the Tories as it is to anybody. <BR /> <BR />Arlene Foster interrupted Mr Farry's contribution to mention what the shadow Secretary of State said in his interview in 'The Irish Times' last week. I stand to be corrected on this, but I think that it was about there being people "threatening the Stormont institutions". When I heard about that contribution, I remembered what then Prime Minister Tony Blair said to the SDLP on not one but two occasions. In quoting that, I urge people to be vigilant about what some in the Labour Party say when it comes to threatening the situation in Northern Ireland. As people know, then Prime Minister Blair said to the SDLP on two occasions:”
“As Minister Foster will know from attending meetings of parties and Governments, the Secretary of State spends quite a lot of time lauding the Alliance Party. That happened only a couple of Tuesdays ago, and it only confirmed to me that the Alliance Party has now gone back to its historical role in Northern Ireland politics, which is to be the spokesperson for the Northern Ireland Office. Time after time after time in our history, that is what the Alliance Party has been. As we can conclude from the contributions of Mrs Cochrane, Mr Dickson and Mr Farry, not only are they the spokespersons for the NIO but they are now the spokespersons for the Tory party.”
“First of all, I congratulate the Minister on her appointment, because I have not had the opportunity to do so for various reasons. I acknowledge that Minister Foster is one of those Ministers who, in my view, most demonstrated that she did know the difference between being in government and being in power. That is not something that I would so generously state about all her colleagues, but I will certainly state it about her.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would you review the comments just made by Mr Wilson? He referred to the final Budget in Stormont House as the 2014-15 Budget, when everybody knows that it is the 2015-16 Budget.”
“I anticipated your speech coming to an end. Do the Member and his party agree or not agree that, on the face of it, the British Government are in breach of the Stormont House Agreement, in that, last week, they announced £38 million of cuts to the 2015-16 Budget, when Stormont House says — the Minister may wish to respond to this in due course — that the Budget that the DUP and Sinn Féin brought forward was "a final ... budget"? Does your party agree or not agree that a final Budget, which the British Government said had to be presented to the House, was then unpicked by the British Chancellor of the Exchequer last week when "final" became final less £38 million?”
“Last Thursday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that, independent of what happens in July and in the autumn, there will be in-year cuts to the current Budget measured in a number of billions of pounds. Have the Northern Ireland Executive, OFMDFM or DFP been advised that there are or will be any consequential in-year cuts for the 2015-16 Budget arising from what the Chancellor announced last week?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. When you review the comments of Mr McCausland, will you also review the last comments of the Member who just spoke? He referred to current members of the judiciary subverting our democracy.”
“There is a further opportunity to build into the architecture of Northern Ireland a bill of rights relevant to the particular circumstances of here. <BR /> <BR />Mr Speaker, I agree with the comments made by various Members about what Mr Nelson McCausland said. When you review Hansard, I urge you to note that in his comments about members and former members of the CAJ, he named one person, he identified two others and he purported to visit on them various political allegiances as well as the allegiance of that organisation. If that is not a reason to name somebody in the Chamber, I do not know what is.”
“When we were negotiating and implementing Patten and when the legislation was being passed in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the code of ethics built into its architecture and into the new beginning to policing went beyond the European Convention on Human Rights. It was informed by the wider principles and provisions of UN conventions. Is anybody any less for the fact that our Police Service has a code of ethics that, when upheld, is to the benefit of each citizen and each community in the North? I think not. Those examples — there are many others — are good grounds for why, even at this late stage, we should look for a bill of rights, which was committed to in various agreements entered into by governments and parties heretofore.”
“When you cut through the fog that the British Prime Minister and others are trying to create, you see that it is something that protects the citizens of not just Northern Ireland and Britain but the rest of the island and far into the wider European context. It is a sword to deploy against the wrong, but it will be a shield to protect the right. We must never move away from all of that. <BR /> <BR />We want to go further. For all the strength of the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights that it reflects, there are many more provisions. If, going forward, we are to have a rights-based approach on this island, especially in the northern part, we must consider the many other examples of international codes and conventions on the protection of human rights that have application to our society.”
“If, through the stated commitment that Mr Dickson has brought to my attention, the British Prime Minister will do damage to the Human Rights Act, let us be very clear: we are undoing and doing damage to the Good Friday Agreement; we are undoing and doing damage to the rights, the culture and the approach that are at the heart and centre of our new democracy and stability going forward; and we are doing damage to protecting people's rights. <BR /> <BR />Generally, the Human Rights Act is a sword to deploy against wrong, but it is also a shield to protect what is right. That is the essence of the Human Rights Act.”
“On many occasions, the narrative of conflict on this island was informed and defined by disputes about issues of law, order and justice. The failure to have in place proper rights, provisions and standards fuelled and added to those disputes. That is why the wise authors of the Good Friday Agreement, in their interventions in respect of policing, justice, human rights and equality, created structures and architecture to mitigate and legislate against invasions of rights and protections in the future such as we had in the past.”
“As I have said endlessly in the Chamber and in other places, that is because, when our national conflict was fully evolved, it revolved around issues of law, order and justice.”
“I was not aware of that, but it corroborates my point that we have not been overtaken by events. My view is that the reason why the Prime Minister might have made that comment today is that, in the fullness of time, on the eve of an in/out European Union referendum — and this party will vigorously campaign against withdrawal from the European Union — the British Prime Minister will trade a yes vote to stay in Europe for a no vote for the Human Rights Act. In order to bring dissident elements in the Tory party into line to try to get a possible yes vote over the line, he will throw other things into the negotiation to try to justify a yes vote. One of those things will be doing damage to the Human Rights Act. <BR /> <BR />As Members have outlined, at the heart of the Good Friday Agreement is a rights-based approach.”
“I thank the Alliance Party for bringing forward the motion today. I agree with Mr Dickson's comments in respect of the direction of travel of the Prime Minister and the new justice secretary in England. I will not be as casual as Mr McCausland when he said that this debate was overtaken by events, given the lack of references to the Human Rights Act in the Queen's Speech.”
“London has to understand that we will maximise the pressure on them in advance of 8 July. If we do not do so, we are letting down too many people in Northern Ireland who, this year, are living with the consequences of the worst austerity Budget in four or five years, imposed on them by the DUP and Sinn Féin. We cannot allow that to be done a second time around.”
“There is some weight in Mr Wilson's point, but the contention that all this has to be done and dusted and concluded today in order to open the door for the budgetary process on Friday, given that it is two months to the end of July is, in my view, problematic and stretches a point. I welcome the fact that Mr Wilson acknowledges that it is at the end of July, and I acknowledge the point that it is better to do it some time in advance of that. However, the notion that it all has to be done and dusted, sorted and concluded in order to move on to Friday and the Budget process is, in my view, unsustainable. The political point is the self-evident one. We should spend our time exhausting the welfare negotiation between now and 8 July or earlier if we can do it, but not to then say that it is all over and done.”
“I did not bring the Chamber back; I did the right thing in DSD. It was you and the DUP who tried to unpick it and lost.”
“It is right that, if we do not have a Budget by then, we are in free fall. You will get that admission from me, if nothing else today: we will be in free fall. However, the point is that we have two months not just to conclude welfare but to put it up to London as fully as we can and as united as we can be on behalf of those on welfare and all the others who are subject to public funding, be it in terms of grants, procurement or jobs. The time frame neatly converges, because, if there is a need to have a Budget by the end of July — God knows we have come back to the Chamber after recess when people wanted to make a song and dance about Red Sky or raise an issue about parading —”
“The reason I say that is that we believe that, when you get down to it, today is an artificial deadline. The reason that it is an artificial deadline, as Mr Wilson knows, is that we need to have a Budget in place — this goes back to Mr Beggs's question — when the bank account runs dry, and the bank account runs dry in August. Is that not the case, Mr Wilson? He has acknowledged that. The bank account runs dry because the 45% Vote on Account runs out in and around the end of July and into early August.”
“If you accept that argument, whatever the history, we are now in a context where, if we do not come together and join the Scottish nationalists to try to do something to impact on the worst excesses of what will be proposed in budgeting and welfare, we will be negligent and neglectful and will let our people down. Even if you do not believe it, you should have the common sense to say that we should exhaust the opportunity between now and 8 July. <BR /> <BR />I say to the Minister that there are issues that we still want to address, partly because of the election and partly because of the interregnum, if you like, since the election. There are still matters that we want to take forward with the Minister. I make that offer honestly, and I think that he will accept it honestly.”
“Precisely. We learn from what they have done. If the Trussell Trust says to us that that is the scale of need for food banks as a direct consequence of the scale of welfare reform and welfare cuts, let us warn ourselves. <BR /> <BR />I will answer Mr Beggs's question. Either you accept the scale of what is happening between now and 42 days, between now and the Treasury statement to the House of Commons, or you do not. You will have two Members of Parliament there who will have to listen to it and will have to put their hands up for it, if that is what they are inclined to do. Either you accept that the scale of that, whatever it was before, is now greater and puts more people at risk, creates more vulnerability and puts more people in north and west Belfast and across the North in jeopardy of having to go to food banks, or you do not.”
“The number of people, Mr Wilson, who have gone to food banks as a direct consequence of how welfare reform has impacted on their life — I will find the figures again —”
“I will answer that question and conclude my remarks generally. I think that it was the Minister who asked whether we would go to London again with a begging bowl. Whilst it is not the appropriate phrase, there will be people in south and west Belfast going to the food bank because they have nowhere else to go to sustain themselves and their families. It is not about going to London with a begging bowl; it is about ensuring that the food bank will be less used and there is no need for more of them in Northern Ireland, given what the Trussell Trust has said about the scale of what is required.”
“For what it is worth, I do think that I get things wrong. I think that Mr Wilson, even when he was the Finance Minister, will accept that principle. I got things wrong in DOE and DSD that I still regret, and, if I had got them right, government and the public in Northern Ireland would be in a better place. <BR /> <BR />Are there things that we could have done better on welfare? Yes. In my view, the DUP dropped the ball in 2011. They bowled it too short to the London Government on welfare reform and welfare need. Technical things that were useful and welcome were negotiated, but the opportunity to confront London that existed in May 2011 was squandered thereafter. There was an opportunity between 2011 and 2013 to push the boat out very much further before London and the DUP came up with the wheeze of imposing penalties.”
“Given the issues in the health service and the profile of our ageing population, that amount will grow, but we cannot find tens of millions of pounds. What have we been doing? We have been sitting on our butts. Or, some people have been sitting on their butts with nothing being done until Jim Wells came along. I think that Edwin Poots, to be fair to him, also started to do a bit to take forward the all-Ireland health study, which is in the public domain and was published in 2006. In respect of that, useful stuff has been done in the border area and, now, in children's cardiac care, but not on the scale and range of what is out there.”
“Remember they have 54 MPs. There are a dozen or more from here. That is a wedge to make things more difficult. I will let Mr Wilson in. <BR /> <BR />Where is the money coming from? The truth of the matter is that the austerity Budget that was voted through in November 2014 and January 2015 — the best deal possible according to Martin McGuinness — was the worst austerity Budget that we have had in five years. Where is the money coming from? There are multiple proposals out there. We have gone through them before. <BR /> <BR />Jim Wells, when he was Health Minister, took the bull by the horns and agreed to all-Ireland children's cardiac care. Fifty per cent of our Budget and over 40% of the Republic's Budget is for health.”
“All that I hear is a debate about the moment, important though it is, and not about the next five years, as acute and critical as they will be in the lived experience of the people of this part of the North. <BR /> <BR />Sinn Féin put it in this tiresome way and said, "Let us unite and have a negotiation". That is another meaningless phrase. This is about hard, strategic common enterprise. I hear that Nicola Sturgeon used those words on Scottish radio this morning about a common enterprise by the people in business in Scotland to minimise what London will do and, in the meantime, try to mitigate that and confront London.”
“<BR /> <BR />The second thing is that, if that scenario is right about what we are facing between now and 8 July, where is the DUP outlining to the people of Northern Ireland how it will maximise its strength with the rest of us in order to try to minimise the impact of all that? I do not hear anything coming from the opposite Benches. Maybe the First Minister had this conversation for an hour with the Prime Minister in the House of Commons. Maybe a lot of stuff went on, or not. What our people out there need to know is what we will do over the next 42 days, given the scale of what we know is coming. We did not anticipate even half of it in January and February. What is the answer to that?”
“I will not bury my head in the sand about the essence of that question, save to say three things. First, whatever others in the SDLP and I said at Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage about the doom and gloom that we were about to face, we were not telling even half the truth. I ask the Minister to consider that, because he rightly berated us about the scenario that we would face after May. Our answer was that it would be bad and would be an emergency Budget. What did we get? It is worse than bad and will be an even worse emergency Budget. Maybe, on this occasion, we were right and the wishful thinkers on the other side of the Chamber were less right.”
“We have to ask and answer that question because, if London is giving with one hand, whatever the nature of that giving might be, and then ripping it all back with the other, it does not make any of us look very clever. Worse, it puts in jeopardy and makes vulnerable dozens, thousands and hundreds of thousands of the people whom we are meant to represent.”
“I will in a second. I will give way to everybody. I do not have an issue with that, but I just want to go back and make this point because Mr Wilson might not have been here for it. Some dispute the quality of the negotiation, as some outside the Chamber clearly do, but what is the standing of the moneys agreed at Stormont House should the scale of what is taken away from us in July be disproportionate to, if not greater than, what we negotiated?”
“Mr Wilson and the rest of us have to deal with all of that: otherwise, we are being negligent and neglectful of the interests of people in the North.”
“If that could be done, and done right, with the guarantees and certainties that we and other parties are looking for — I will raise other matters with the Minister in my concluding remarks — that would be welcome, positive and good. Mr Wilson answers the question about the past and where we are now, but he does not answer the question about where we will be in the future. Where will we be when DWP and Treasury begin to scope out — as I tried to do in an earlier contribution — the scale of the next phase of welfare reform? The future is 8 July, when we will see what early, deep cuts the Chancellor, Mr Osborne, puts into the public domain in order to get over the hump, before introducing the inheritance tax relief that he thinks will see the Tories elected to a third term with him as Prime Minister.”
“How much more keen and ambitious will London be when it comes to, say, the devolution of corporation tax, to do it on its terms? Its terms are sustainable finances, and we are in the moment of seeing what those look like when it comes to welfare. That is why this debate is so important: if we hold the line now, with others, there is some potential that, between now and the beginning of July, a different scenario might begin to prevail.”
“It was made, and deliberately made, at the Committee that was dealing with corporation tax. It was made deliberately because he was putting down a marker. <BR /> <BR />At that stage, there was some hope that, whatever Government were in Westminster after the election, they would be a coalition that would, somehow or other, reduce the excesses of the primary partner in Government, but that is gone.”
“I will make a number of points and I will deal with his question, but he has to deal with mine. It is this: you sat in the House of Commons Committee on 11 February when the then junior Minister in the Treasury basically said that they would wave the stick again if they had to. That is what he said. What integrity is left to the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement, the Assembly and the Executive, if London, having deployed the big stick approach previously in welfare, are now indicating that they will deploy the big stick approach when it comes to other issues? That is what he said, and he said it in the context of the devolution of corporation tax powers. It was not some passing reference on the Floor of the House of Commons, or an ad hoc comment made at some Committee in the House of Lords.”
“What is the standing of all of that if loans are given on the one hand and moneys are then taken back through new and deep austerity on the other? That issue has to be faced up to in this debate. <BR /> <BR />There are Members in this Chamber who, properly, represent Northern Ireland in the Westminster institutions — the House of Lords and the House of Commons — and in 42 days they will be up and down for votes, just like the ones that people are trying to impose on this Chamber today. They will be up and down for votes at the next phase of Budget and welfare cuts. Mr Wilson, if you do not send out the message today that you will challenge and confront all that, then London will draw the conclusion that there are people who are prepared, even if not willing, to do their business when it comes to Northern Ireland politics.”
“Ambiguity might not be a very welcome thing when it comes to certainty in politics, especially considering what happened after the Good Friday Agreement, when the lack of certainty and commitment to live up to the requirements of Irish democracy saw this institution go into suspension on more than one occasion. Politics and the people should drive how we address this matter, and ways and means can be found to get round that. <BR /> <BR />Mr Wilson missed the earlier part of my contribution, and I am not making any issue about that with him. The point I was trying to make was: what is the standing, perhaps even the worth, of the Stormont House moneys or of that effort, or of some of the principles agreed to, or some of the mitigations that are on offer — whatever disputes there might be about them?”
“Mr Wilson was a Member of the Assembly where things that were done were undone. That is the truth. Mr Wilson might forget that, but things were done that were undone. People who were one designation changed their designation. Why? Because the politics of the moment required the Alliance Party to do so. So, when there are parties in here telling the SDLP that today is make-or-break day, let me remind more than one party in the Chamber that there is precedent in the Chamber that, when the politics requires it, means are found to address that. I will let in Mr Wilson in a second. <BR />The Alliance Party might want to remember that, as might other parties.”
“My answer to that is simply that the technical should not get in the way of the political. There have been occasions in the lifetime of the Assembly's mandates —”
“I will give way to Mr Wilson in a second, but that is what the Minister said, and that is precisely what London did when they came to the welfare penalties. Whether or not they colluded with the DUP — Sinn Féin absents itself from the relevant meetings — they engineered the situation where the imposition of welfare penalties was meant to break the back of the Northern Ireland Government and Assembly when it came to welfare reform. Mr Gauke, not anticipating that the Tories would have a majority Government, was telling Westminster in February of this year that they would go back for round two and that, if there were not sustainable finances, the London Government might again begin to wave the stick.”
“To come back to the reference to Mr Wilson, I make that point to remind people about what was said on Wednesday 11 February 2015, at the Consideration Stage of the Bill to give effect to the proposal in respect of corporation tax. Mr Wilson will remember the meeting because he and Mr Durkan were at the meeting where Mr Gauke, who was then the junior Treasury Minister, gave evidence. This is what I read into the record at Consideration Stage, where I referred to an exchange at the meeting in London on 11 February between Mark Durkan and Mr Gauke:”
“Is it not a breach of the agreement in respect of the devolved arrangements that, 42 days from an emergency Budget, London is having conversations with London Departments but, it appears, is silent when it comes to having conversations with the Northern Ireland Government or with the Scottish or Welsh Governments?”
“I will in a second, because I want to remind Mr Wilson about a meeting that he was at in London just before the election. <BR /> <BR />According to the junior Treasury Minister, the London Government have spoken to Departments about how they are going to, in the short term, do adjustments that they can announce in the emergency Budget in July. If that is the conversation that the Chancellor is openly saying is happening in London as we speak, and if there is no similar conversation going on with this devolved arrangement or with the Scottish or Welsh devolved Administrations, what does that say about London's high-handedness? They say that they are having conversations with Departments in London about what more they can cut in the very short term, yet it appears there are no conversations going on with the devolved Administrations.”
“How could that wrong-headed approach then endure and escalate to the point of Sinn Féin endorsing that draft Budget earlier this year and blocking every single amendment tabled by the Green Party and the SDLP — every single amendment — that was put to a vote? People can draw their own conclusions about all of that. <BR /> <BR />I will conclude with this comment, if I may: Mark Durkan coined the phrase last week, in our party meeting and in meetings with the British Government and others, that we needed "mature negotiations". The Minister is thinking that we are not being very mature about things today, but we need to have a concluding phase of mature negotiations, for a number of reasons.”
“<BR /> <BR />I remember, at Further Consideration Stage, inviting the party to my right to exit the door behind the Top Table, turn right, turn right again, go to the Business Office and sign a petition of concern to block welfare reform. That was declined. I cannot reconcile it, for the life of me. Sinn Féin now has a right-headed approach in respect of welfare. It seems to me that, belatedly, it has come to that. How could it have had such a wrong-headed approach last November when Martin McGuinness said that the draft Budget — the worst austerity Budget since 2011 — was the best deal possible?”
“Across this debate, from the hour and moment of the first reading of the Welfare Reform Bill, there has not been any stage where the SDLP has not tabled a petition of concern. Whatever difference of opinion there may have been about what London is at and the mitigation measures that are being proposed, as far as I can recall, at every stage the SDLP has held true and tried to block the Welfare Reform Bill in the event of there not being full and satisfactory answers to the questions in respect of the content of the Bill and now in respect of the content and character of what the Tory Government are proposing in the rundown to, and after, the emergency Budget in July. That cannot be said for every party in this Chamber that tabled petitions of concern at any time.”
“That is the only conclusion that I can draw from what I heard, and Mr Agnew has confirmed it. From what I heard the Minister say this morning, the bedroom tax is going to be in place. It may only be in place for a very small number of tenants — we do not know — but it will be in place for that number of tenants. That is not mitigation in full, it is mitigation in full with the safety net withdrawn in the event of a change in personal circumstances or suitable accommodation becoming available.”
“That is the conclusion that I would have to make, Minister, in response to Mr Agnew. The point of those questions at Further Consideration Stage was to determine whether the bedroom tax, in any shape or form in any circumstances whatsoever, would or would not be in place. The conclusions that the SDLP, and I know the Green Party, drew from Further Consideration Stage, as well as the conclusion that Mr Agnew drew this morning, seem to be that there will be situations in Northern Ireland where personal circumstances have changed and where an offer of suitable accommodation was made and the bedroom tax, having been mitigated in full, will then be reintroduced for that tenant.”