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 23 of 32.
“I will in a moment. <BR /> <BR />Is it not a valid argument to make that, in addition to investment in south and east Belfast, you have to take forward investment opportunities in north and west Belfast? Why? It will lift the place, regenerate it and deal with the decades of disadvantage and alienation that are all too evident.”
“<BR /> <BR />There is a strategic issue that we have to face up to. The city is regenerating itself through McAleer and Rushe building suitable accommodation for FDI, which is welcome, and the harbour is regenerating itself because the Harbour Commission has the means to draw down moneys to build suitable accommodation for FDI, of which there is likely to be more in the future. So, does it not follow that similar investments in north and west Belfast, given its profile of need, in order to lift those areas and help people out of the poverty that they have experienced for generations and right up until this day —”
“I will. Before I give way to the Minister, I ask her to corroborate this: Delta Print and Packaging, which is one of our premium businesses and main exporters, now employs 265 people and is about to open a business in Poland and businesses in China. There are areas in other parts of the city, not just the south and east, where there are opportunities to invest and build suitable accommodation for FDI. Terry Cross, and his company, Delta Print and Packaging, confirms what can be done. That is why we had a conversation with the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment about protecting land in west Belfast, particularly the Visteon land. We want to ensure that there are industrial opportunities in the future rather than all the land of west Belfast being used for social housing and other housing development.”
“Just as the regional imbalance in economic development in Northern Ireland could be compounded if we do not manage corporation tax properly, there is a regional imbalance in the greater Belfast area. <BR /> <BR />Earlier, in response to comments made by Mr Allister, I read into the record the profile of need in west Belfast. The reality is that you can help to address that profile of need, for which there are multiple indicators, if you locate jobs in that area.”
“I will take your direction. In relation to the Budget Bill, the First Minister made some comments about what he believes, it seems, that I said about FDI and the greater Belfast area. Let me be very clear about what I have said to various Ministers in the Executive and in a conversation with my colleagues in the SDLP. I said that it is always welcome when jobs come to Belfast. Anybody who denies that is denying a self-evident truth. Any jobs that come to Belfast are welcome, but we have to recognise that the FDI jobs coming to Belfast are concentrated in the Queen's Island/Titanic/Harbour Commission corridor. That is a fact. You have only to look at the suitable accommodation that has been or is being built in the harbour estate to confirm that the businesses that are coming into the city are, for very good reasons, going to those areas.”
“I will in a second. Remember that it is about the economy of these islands. If you speak to the Irish Government, they will tell you that one of their biggest preoccupations at the moment, and rightly so, is the consequences for the Irish economy in the event that Britain and Northern Ireland withdraw from the EU, given the trading relationship and the big trading partnership between Dublin and London.”
“<BR /> <BR />So, no, we should not put off the decision on corporation tax, but we should not ignore the events that could conspire to create difficulties for the economy of Northern Ireland and of these islands.”
“I thank the First Minister for that intervention because I think that everything he said corroborates the fact that the questions that we have raised, which were raised by the leader at the leaders’ meeting yesterday and, as I understand it, at the Executive by Minister Mark H Durkan in his submissions on the corporation tax papers from DFP, are the right ones to be asked and the right ones to be answered. <BR /> <BR />It suggests to me that, given that the First Minister has just said that he agrees with us that these are all legitimate questions, to portray what we are saying as pernickety, niggling and small issues, indicates some conflict and tension between what the First Minister said earlier and what he said in the last couple of minutes.”
“I will give way in a second. <BR /> <BR />On corporation tax, are these not the right questions to ask? What happens in the event of EU withdrawal? What are the consequences of a general reduction in corporation tax in Britain? How will we mitigate the potential for regional imbalance? How will we ensure that the infrastructure across Northern Ireland is what is necessary to attract and sustain FDI? Those are valid questions, and we would be negligent as parliamentarians, and as a political party, if we did not ask them in the context of the principle of the devolution of corporation tax and its timing and agreed rate. <BR /> <BR />I will give way to the First Minister.”
“I will in a second. <BR /> <BR />How would that work itself through in the management of the economy in Northern Ireland? What if the Tories are re-elected and move towards reducing corporation tax further, down to 18%, 17% or 16%? How would that impact on a Northern Ireland corporation tax rate of 12·5%? How would Derry maximise the opportunities of the devolution of corporation tax without the necessary infrastructure, such as a road from Dungiven to Derry, when best advice, including from the chamber of commerce in the city of Derry, says that the future of Derry is the university and its infrastructure and that that would be the game changer for its citizens? <BR /> <BR />So we are saying, in relation to corporation tax —”
“The SDLP supports the devolution of corporation tax, but we have been absolutely right to put down questions and markers for when and how it will take place. What would happen if the people of Britain and Northern Ireland were to decide to exit the EU? What would the consequences be if that referendum were held in 2016 as opposed to 2017?”
“If we do not anticipate that, and invest in other parts of Northern Ireland, not least in the city of Derry and at Magee campus, you will have, as a consequence of the welcome devolution of corporation tax, at least the risk of a further concentration of jobs in the greater Belfast area to the loss of the North.”
“The evidence is that, internationally as well as nationally, FDI will go where the skills are, and in the context of Northern Ireland that is the greater Belfast area. <BR /> <BR />We need to learn from the South where, as part of their overall development of the economy, they have invested in regional colleges and universities that are developing students with skills who can serve the needs of FDI. That is the lesson that you draw from yesterday's announcement — an €850 million investment in Athenry, outside Galway, because Galway has become a university town and one that is developing the skills and capacity that FDI companies want. <BR /> <BR />In our view, the First Minister is not fully correct to say that there is no evidence that FDI is going to come to any part of the country. It will go where there are skills clusters.”
“That is what the Irish Government have done. They have recognised that, contrary to what the First Minister says, there is evidence that when foreign direct investment comes into a country, it goes where there are clusters of skills. One of the risks in relation to the devolution of corporation tax, which the SDLP supports in principle, is that we will not learn the lesson from the Republic of Ireland, the lesson corroborated by the Apple announcement yesterday, and that you will compound the regional imbalance that is already too acute and critical if you do not have what the Irish Government say, which is:”
“Do not dismiss their advice as "pernickety", "niggling" and a "small issue" when people are differentiating themselves from other parties. When you make that comment about the SDLP, First Minister, you are making it about people of good authority who give good advice to the parties in this Chamber on how to take forward various public policies. You can say what you want about the SDLP, but you should not send that message to those who serve the people of Northern Ireland in many ways and for the betterment of those whom we represent. <BR /> <BR />Let me ask the First Minister this question: what was the announcement made yesterday by Apple in relation to a new data centre in Galway? It was an €850 million investment by Apple in Galway with 300 jobs. When the announcement was made, the economy Minister in the South said that they were:”
“Let that be part of the sectoral developments in the North/South Ministerial Council that were indicated at the Stormont House Agreement. Maybe, if you were to take those forward, there would be further reason to applaud this Executive in what it does. <BR /> <BR />These were the words that the First Minister used in relation to a number of debates in the Chamber during the course of the last number of hours — "pernickety", "niggling", "small issue" when we were trying to differentiate from the rest. "Pernickety", "niggling", "small issue". As I said earlier to the Alliance Member for East Antrim: do not send a message to people who give best advice to those in the Chamber about how welfare should be shaped, how the economy should be shaped, how health should be shaped, or how any area of public policy should be shaped.”
“Given the scale of moneys now going into health provision on the island of Ireland, — 50% of public expenditure in the North, over 40% in the South and 33% in Britain — is there not an obligation on the First Minister, who applauds the Executive for what they have done for the economy, to now have them apply themselves to health provision on an all-Ireland basis? <BR /> <BR />That is why the SDLP warmly welcomed the decision that Minister Wells and Minister Varadkar made some months ago on children's cardiac care. That demonstrated what lateral, innovative thinking in the Governments on this island can do to provide a better service for people in health need on the island. I suggest to the First Minister that if he wants now to go in a bold and innovative way, we should do so on the basis of the 2000 health study.”
“I have been encouraged to respond to the comments of the First Minister in particular. Before doing so, let me point out where I might agree with the First Minister, although he spoke as a Member for East Belfast. I agree with the points that he made about health and the economy. I ask the First Minister this: if there is an all-Ireland health study that was conducted and completed a number of years ago, is there not an imperative, as we move to rebalance our economy, also to rebalance our health service on an all-Ireland basis?”
“I was not inclined to speak in the debate, as I probably spoke more than enough today.”
“I thought that that amendment was consequential to the previous one. If it was not, I will move it.”
“I was concluding, but I am prepared to give way.”
“In the context of a debate about welfare and given the scale of the benefit cuts and changes that have been proposed, comments that reduce good arguments and good authority to being about having your cake and eating it are not helpful. If there is advice from outside the Chamber, you might want to describe it as having your cake and eating it; I would describe it as taking best advice from people who are well qualified to give it. Given that we have had some good conversations with the Minister, I regret that some useful opportunities to enhance where we are seem to have been declined in the past few hours.”
“<BR /> <BR />The problem with the debate is that people have decided that they want to live in a political straitjacket known as the Stormont House Agreement, when people outside in the advice sector and from the Human Rights Commission are saying, "There are things that you can do to enhance this". On the previous day, we had petitions of concern, and, today, in the absence of petitions of concern but with the same outcome, we are voting down the best advice from the people with the best authority in this part of the world whom we should not second-guess. In fact, we should embrace and endorse what they say and put it into the primary law. Forgive me, Mr Maskey, but we will implement what is strong and try to —”
“Where we think that things can be done better or are weak, we will work to rectify them. We have always maintained that argument, and we are not going to change. It is crucial that we do that, because, as I said on the previous occasion, there are parts, including those on dealing with the past, that are less about truth and accountability and more about protecting the vested interests of the people in command and control of state organisations and terror groups that were active in the past. On the basis of our political values and the ethics that we uphold, we will dissent from all of that. We are not dissidents, but we value the right to dissent. If there are things in the Stormont House Agreement that we have to dissent from to make the weak better, that is what we will do.”
“On the last occasion, I said to the Minister and the leader of the DUP that, when we gave a press conference after Stormont House, just a few yards from here, our position was crystal clear, and we have not varied from it: we will implement as fully and faithfully as we can that which is strong in the Stormont House Agreement and try to rectify what is weak. We are right in that. In the last couple of days, there was a meeting in this Building of the party leaders. We differ from all other parties on how to implement the proposals for dealing with the past. We want to protect the authority of Patten and the accountability mechanisms of the Policing Board. Others seem to think otherwise when it comes to the appointment of senior staff and so on and so forth.”
“I do not intend to rehearse all of the arguments and concerns about sanctions. The point is that the JSC needs to have the explicit power in law to dig under the profile of accuracy to which I referred in order to see whether the decision-making is of the quality required. It is easy to conduct a quantitative exercise by looking at facts and figures. We need a qualitative exercise that interrogates those facts and figures to ensure that, when it comes to sanctions, it is doing what it should. <BR /> <BR />I will conclude with one or two brief comments in response to comments made by Mr Maskey.”
“I have to say to the Minister that the entire record of that meeting is about checking accuracy; it is not about interrogating decision-making. I do not, at this late hour, intend to go into any more detail, but there are reams of this stuff. <BR /> <BR />The joint standards committee does a very good job of looking at the accuracy of people with the responsibility to maintain accuracy in the Social Security Agency. It does good work checking that homework, and I do not take away from that. I have no doubt that it maximises its mandate, but, from looking at the record of meetings — that is only one typical example — it seems that it is all about accuracy and not about interrogating decision-making. That is why we re-tabled our amendment to monitor the quality of decision-making on sanctions.”
“My question to the Minister is this: what further thought has he given to what was said on that day? I refer the Minister to the meeting of the joint standards committee held on 23 September 2014. This is very current, and I refer to it because, in my view, our concern that the joint standards committee cannot look at the decision-making is corroborated by the report, which says:”
“In my view, accuracy is a technical word that is not about the character of the decisions being made. It is just box ticking when it comes to decisions that were made. The Minister then added, when that point was made:”
“The Minister will remember making that point, and he will also recall my reply:”
“I take the lead from you, Mr Speaker. However, if the Member wants to have a further conversation about that, I am more than willing to do so. <BR /> <BR />I will deal with amendment No 25, which is a new clause. I remind the Minister of what he said on 11 February at Consideration Stage. When it came to the work of the joint standards committee, he made the point that its work:”
“That means that you do not put FDI into south and east Belfast but protect industrial sites in west Belfast and try to move into those areas.”
“There are many answers to that, and I will give one or two, if I may. One reason is the history of this part of this country since partition. The people of west Belfast were subject to discrimination. I remind people that this is not Catholic west Belfast; this is all of west Belfast, in which there is still a significant minority that comes from a different political tradition to the one that I represent. If you have a situation in which, in this part of Ireland, long-term male Catholic unemployment is virtually unchanged decades after fair employment, where increasing numbers of Protestant male adults experience the same long-term, generational unemployment whereby nobody in a family — children, parents or grandparents — works, what do you do to remedy that? You invest to deal with that disadvantage.”
“Critically, as of 31 March 2014, the greatest differences, with prevalence rates being higher in West Belfast than the Northern Ireland average, were for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, coronary heart disease and hypertension. It goes on and on, and it is published every month by the Assembly for the profile of disadvantage and deprivation. How dare Mr Allister point the finger when their life experience is informed by those figures, when those people have to live those lives, this year and this decade and decade after decade in this part of Ireland, compounded by the error of partition? How dare Mr Allister point the finger at any of those people?”
“Do not let Mr Allister point the finger at a culture of dependency in my constituency when that is its culture of life. The percentage of people claiming income support is 9·7% in West Belfast and 3% in North Antrim. The percentage of those claiming benefits is 50·5% in West Belfast and 38·3% in North Antrim. It is not for me to tell another Member how to do his business in his constituency, but when nearly 40% of people in his constituency are claiming benefits, maybe he should begin to ask questions. Unemployment is 9·4% in West Belfast, 4·8% in North Antrim and so on.”
“I will shortly. <BR /> <BR />North Antrim has 9·5%, and 9·5% is not good enough either.”
“When it comes to people claiming housing benefit, the figure is 21·6% in West Belfast — the second worst constituency in the North.”
“One of the ways and mechanisms to ensure maximum protection is to have the maximum oversight in the Chamber of regulations, reports in respect of the work of the Department and the powers of the joint standards committee. We are backing all those amendments so that the Chamber and the Department and the joint standards committee have the wherewithal to properly interrogate welfare regulations and welfare practice to ensure that there is maximum protection. <BR /> <BR />The reason for all of that, if I could take just one minute, is to go back to Mr Allister's comments. Why? Because Mr Allister failed to read into the record the fact that, when it comes to children living in low-income families, the figure is 40% in West Belfast — the worst constituency in the North. North Antrim is 18·4%.”
“When it comes to our priorities, yes, we should crack down on welfare fraud and benefit fraud, but, when you look at those figures and see how much time and resources are invested in going after welfare claimants compared with the time, money and resources invested going after the tax cheats, the corporate tax evasion and all of that, you begin to wonder where people's priorities lie. <BR /> <BR />We will support the amendments tabled by Mr Agnew. The reason we are supporting the amendments on positive resolution and independent reports and extra function being given to the joint standards committee is to try to ensure that the people in need have the maximum protection.”
“<BR /> <BR />I agree with Mr Maskey on one thing: I do not think that politicians in the Assembly across the parties are indifferent to the needs of people and the needs of people in need. I may dissent and differ from Mr Allister and Mr McCallister's contributions, which veered towards that at times. I do not think that that was their intention, but, in some of their language, that seemed to be the case. The SDLP's view of the purpose of all of this and all of the amendments is that it is about dealing with people in need. I speak from memory, so this may be inaccurate, but there is £70 billion in tax that should be claimed by HMRC, and it has 350 people going after those who are avoiding paying their tax of £70 billion; there are 3,500 people in the welfare system going after a tiny amount of claim fraud in welfare.”
“I will, if I am permitted, make some wider comments towards the end of my contribution. First of all, because I did not do this at Consideration Stage, I thank the Bill Office and the staff in the Assembly for all the work that they have done on this. A lot of this stuff tends to be done at the eleventh hour and even past the eleventh hour, and the people in the Bill Office and the Assembly generally were always willing and helpful and tried to find resolutions to problems rather than find problems. Some people take a different approach. <BR /> <BR />To exhaust an analogy, I say to the Minister that there may be a new broom, but I am afraid that there is an old handle stuck to it. As I said the last time, maybe even between now and 11.00 pm or whenever the debate concludes I might conclude something different.”
“I want to recognise, first of all, that the Minister has travelled some distance on advice, although, to let him down gently, I do not think that the gap will be sufficiently bridged. Beyond the comments that he made about a separate, distinct contract being developed with the independent sector and for advice giving on welfare reform, what is his general view about sustaining the independent advice sector generally?”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. That is very clear. If a tenant's housing benefit is reduced because of underoccupation, the mitigation is on a pound-for-pound basis. If that tenant is then offered suitable accommodation on two or three occasions, let us say, and declines, is the mitigation withdrawn?”
“This matter has been raised by the Human Rights Commission in recent days, so it is not something that has been raised again and again or that you have had to reassure us of again and again.”
“You are very generous, and I appreciate you giving way. First, could you lodge in the Library the references that you have just made to comments made by the Lord Chancellor and Home Secretary in Westminster? Secondly, can you confirm whether you got legal advice on this issue or are you satisfied with the reassurances that have emanated from London? Thirdly, I do not think that this issue has actually arisen before, certainly not on the Floor of the House, so I do not think that it is a matter of repeating again and again. It is a matter of putting on record something that the Human Rights Commission thinks should be on record.”
“Look at the profile and then draw conclusions about why people are in the situation that they are in. The best way for you to understand is to come and visit west Belfast, and I invite you to do that between now and Final Stage.”
“I am not quite sure how to reply to that. Part of me says that, clearly, you are about to run for the Conservative Party in South Down in the forthcoming election, because Chris Grayling would have been impressed by that sort of contribution. Could you deal with some of the facts? One in 10 of our people, for example, is on disability benefit, which is twice the number in Britain. That is the consequence of historical inequality working through in the lives of people in terms of their health and experience. <BR /> <BR />In north and west Belfast, where much of the conflict was concentrated, people were traumatised physically and mentally. If you were to acknowledge those points, we could have a proper discussion. Instead, you throw out grandiose claims about how people in west Belfast are trapped in poverty.”
“First, many people will find your comments offensive and verging on demonisation. Secondly, it has been established practice through many welfare reform Bills, because of the very poor childcare facilities in Northern Ireland, which is worse than Britain when it comes to affordable and accessible childcare, that the lack of affordable, accessible childcare is good cause. Thirdly, will you read into the record all of the statistical profile of west Belfast — the fact that people die younger, face much greater health challenges and have bigger families? Indeed, by every criterion of social disadvantage, west Belfast is ill served by the narrow-minded comments you have just made.”
“<BR /> <BR />I also welcome the journey that the DUP and other parties went on to work up a bigger and better package, one that I would like other jurisdictions in these islands to remodel in their own image and for their own needs. If there is strength in what came out of the five-party agreement, it will hopefully have application for welfare claimants wherever they may be on these islands. <BR /> <BR />I ask the Minister to confirm what Mr Maskey said or did not say: is the bedroom tax neutralised? On the basis of what you said the last day, some doubt and uncertainty hang over the Chamber this afternoon.”
“Let us park everything that happened in May 2013, to take up Mr Maskey's point, and what the parties were and were not prepared to sign up to. We should take some strength from the fact that, whilst we differed on it at times, the package that came out did so because people held the line on welfare. They held the line in the first instance when petitions of concern were tabled in respect of the bedroom tax and the overall Bill, some of which were endorsed by one but not all the parties. It was then taken through the Ad Hoc Committee, which was, Mr Brady, an SDLP proposal. Mr Durkan MP proposed to the SDLP that we should use that mechanism to interrogate the legislation, and it served the Assembly well.”