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 24 of 32.
“That package had no supplementary payment fund or any money to go off and get medical evidence, and it did not even have guarantees about the bedroom tax, which may or may not be unravelling, for future tenants; it had cover only for current tenants. To be fully accurate: Mr McGuinness is furious about Mr Robinson's claims:”
“The Durkans always have a turn of phrase, and that is certainly another example of it. <BR /> <BR />The real issue is whether there was a two-party deal. That is the issue. You can take this whatever way you want, and you can rely on it, or you may not want to rely on it. Of course, Mr Robinson made claims long before Stormont House, long before Stormont Castle and long before these negotiations. In fact, in April 2014, he claimed that there was agreement in 2013, not between five, four or three parties but at OFMDFM level. Mr Robinson said:”
“However, checking with the leadership of the other parties, what is claimed did or did not happen on 17 December is not consistent with what they say happened on 17 December. If I am going to rely on people, I would rely on those people. Could I also say that —”
“The immediate question and implication was that the strain was going to fall further on the welfare budget and welfare claimants, because, as the Tories move to protect one sector of our society, there is an equal and opposite effect and impact on another sector of our society. The commentary in London yesterday was that, on the far side of those guarantees, there will be more pain for those on welfare. That is why we think that the proposals for a welfare cap commission will be very important. <BR /> <BR />I conclude by making these points. I checked with the leadership of the Alliance Party and the leadership of the Ulster Unionist Party. There were a lot of conversations in Stormont House and Stormont Castle about the Budget, welfare and all the other matters.”
“As you know from our previous submissions, we think that the welfare cap and the benefits cap will become harder issues over the next period of time, and very quickly if the Tories get elected. I think that you will see, as they did in June 2011, that they will move very quickly to make further interventions in the overall benefit spend and the overall individual benefit entitlement. Yesterday, the commentary from London was on the back of the Prime Minister's commitments to our senior citizens — proper commitments in many incidences — to give them guarantees on benefits and other assistance.”
“Secondly, going back to the amendment that the SDLP tabled at Consideration Stage in respect of people who have a condition that arises from an incident involving a state agency or a terror organisation — what is known as a conflict-related event — is there any fresh thinking about how to manage people who move from DLA to PIP in those circumstances? I think that there was a very strong view at Stormont House and in the Chamber that we should deal with that. <BR /> <BR />Thirdly, the Minister indicated previously that there would be some further work done on the welfare cap commission. There is some indication that there have been discussions with DWP and Treasury in that regard. Can you indicate where we are with that piece of work, the draft terms of reference and when it might be taken forward?”
“What is the point in government allocating whatever tens of millions of pounds each year to provide medical evidence if you end up with some indecipherable note from a GP or consultant. I say that without criticising doctors, because we have to be very careful not to criticise doctors these days. Also, my writing is indecipherable; you only have to go and speak to the staff in my office to understand that. The point is this: is there some thinking about how to standardise and build into the architecture of the relationship at a contractual level between the state and doctors?”
“As I indicated earlier, I will certainly defer to the Member's knowledge of the operation of this, but he will also confirm, from his knowledge as a political representative and as a welfare worker in the Newry area, that the written evidence that comes from doctors and consultants can be of a very mixed pedigree. Some will write a short, indecipherable note; others will write a substantial report. So, I think that there is probably a need to standardise. There is, I think, somewhere in the system, thinking that you can create systems whereby GP or consultant medical evidence can be part of a contract, but it should also be done in a standardised way.”
“However, to harden that outcome, will the Minister advise whether there is any proposal or thinking in respect of making it a mandatory requirement on GPs and consultants, in their contract with services with the state? <BR /> <BR />Secondly —”
“If the Minister can satisfy on those three questions, the amendment might not be moved; however, we will look for explicit reassurance in his answers to those three questions. <BR /> <BR />I will move on and ask a number of questions on the substantive amendment from the Minister in respect of the new fund. He might not be in a position to answer all these questions now, but, in the fullness of time, I ask for answers to be given one way or the other. <BR /> <BR />First, there is some discussion about making the medical advice for PIP a mandatory service, whereby GPs and consultants, in their contractual arrangements with government, would be under a mandatory requirement to provide medical advice. That is a good advance, and it is a good outcome that money is being provided to enable claimants to get independent medical advice.”
“I listened to what Mr Brady said in this regard and about how he understood that all the matters that were addressed in those amendments were being catered for under the new welfare reform regime. I await the Minister's comments in that regard. <BR /> <BR />Again, this amendment was drafted by the Advice Services Consortium; it was not drafted by wise people in the SDLP. The Member for East Antrim seems to have some doubt in that regard. I will come back to his comments in a second. On this amendment, the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA), which has a view on welfare reform, as people know, and the Advice Services Consortium said:”
“In viewing it as a home, we need to give every possible protection to them in their security of tenure. That will mean that, when it comes to someone living in a house, even where their personal circumstances may have changed and suitable alternative accommodation may be available, any move has to be with the tenant's consent. Where future treatment of that tenant is concerned, it cannot be imposed either through the back door or the front door through paying the bedroom tax or not. We urge the Minister to adopt that approach. <BR /> <BR />May I deal, briefly, Mr Speaker, with amendment Nos 2, 3, 8, 9, 10 and 11? This is in respect of basic information being given to sanctions.”
“During the Consideration Stage debate, I recorded a conversation that Reg Empey and I had with Chris Grayling, who was a junior Minister in DWP when Mr Empey was the Minister for Employment and Learning, about why somebody in a social house had to vacate it. He argued that, if somebody in a privately owned property has to give up the ownership of that house because of financial difficulties, it was only fair that somebody next door, who was a social tenant and in receipt of housing support, should have to give their home up as well. That was the logic of Chris Grayling's argument, and I thought that that was a strange value that verged on the offensive. <BR /> <BR />I say to the Minister that, given the policy position of the current context, we should view where people live not as their house but their home.”
“That certainty is that they will not be required to vacate their properties, even if somebody makes the judgement that their personal circumstance have changed and that suitable alternative accommodation exists. You have to give that upfront certainty now, otherwise doubts will creep in that the Stormont House deal, which, on a pound-for-pound basis, mitigated the bedroom tax, is not all that it appears on whatever piece of paper that outcome is recorded. I urge the Minister to give that reassurance by endorsing our amendments, which have that policy consequence. <BR /> <BR />Of course, there are wider reasons why the Minister might want to adopt that policy position. It seems to me that the Tories so often look at people's accommodation as a house and not as a home.”
“Mr Maskey is not here to speak for himself, but I do not think that that is what he understands about mitigation in the bedroom tax on a pound-for-pound basis for any person, be they a current or a future tenant. Are we saying to people that, irrespective of the bedroom tax, there will be circumstances where they will have to vacate their properties? We need absolute clarity on that. <BR /> <BR />In the current circumstances with the bedroom tax and the lack of smaller social housing units, in the context of segregated housing in many parts of this part of Ireland, not least in Belfast, and as the new regime is rolled out and the discretionary fund and the mitigation of the bedroom tax are implemented, we believe that the policy position should be the creation of certainty for tenants now.”
“Will they be put in an impossible situation where, to avoid the bedroom tax, they are obliged to take up the alternative offer of accommodation? If that is the case, I say to the Minister that it appears to me that, having closed the bedroom tax through the front door, we will now have it through the back door. There will be a category of tenant who may disagree with the assessment of their personal circumstances and about suitable alternative accommodation, and because they will not receive the bedroom tax in those circumstances, they will have to pay part of the rent from their own resources or will have no alternative but to say, "I have to get out of my property".”
“However, the Minister seemed to be somewhat more uncertain. Therefore, the amendment that we have on the Marshalled List is to probe that potential difference. This is the question that I have to ask the Minister: in the event that there is a person who somebody decides has changed personal circumstances and there is alternative suitable accommodation, will they receive the bedroom tax given that they are in an over-accommodation situation, as London might describe it, or will they not receive the bedroom tax? What is the answer? <BR /> <BR />If somebody has suitable alternative accommodation, their personal circumstances have changed and they say that they are not leaving the house, will they be subject to the bedroom tax?”
“That is the question that has to be answered today. Earlier in the debate, Mr Maskey had said:”
“Yes, we do want you to be definitive about every single issue.”
“What the Human Rights Commission is arguing, as I understand it, is this: let us create certainty that any contracts that the Social Security Agency enters into with private providers or government must require the providers to respect the resident's convention rights. The Minister may yet be able to convince me that this is in the clause. It is certainly not in the words of the clause. It may be there implicitly, but we need to have certainty. I urge the Minister that the best way to create certainty is to have those words in the contract. <BR /> <BR />I want to move on to the bedroom tax and amendment Nos 11 and 20. I will start by reminding the Minister what he said at Consideration Stage in respect of then clause 69. He will know what I am going to say. He was asked on the Floor:”
“<BR /> <BR />The Human Rights Commission has brought this to the attention of the House because of a court case back in 2002: R v Leonard Cheshire Foundation. This is what Lord Justice Woolf — Lord Woolf, as he then was — said. The case revolved around claimants who were elderly and in a nursing home:”
“And it is still happening, so we need to be very wise when it comes to any legislation that is generalist in its content but gives opportunities to private contractors to get business on behalf of the state. Mr McCann whispered in my ear there that it happened a number of months ago in respect of private contractors and how they conduct themselves in the delivery of public services. There is a lot of bad experience when it comes to private contractors across the delivery of public services in Britain and, increasingly, in Northern Ireland. What the Human Rights Commission is doing, as I understand it, is trying to build it into law that private contractors should be required to comply with the relevant sections of the Human Rights Act, because the private contractor is fulfilling a function of a public nature.”
“It is that we all know that the Tory dogma on the delivery of public service is to put more and more public services in the hands of private contractors. The House will remember how private contractors were appointed to manage the DEL Steps to Work contracts in the summer or early autumn of 2009. When DEL awarded training contracts to a private contractor that happened not to be resident in Northern Ireland, that private contractor — one of the biggest private contractors in Britain — had one member of staff and one mobile telephone in Northern Ireland. Then it was given a number of weeks by DEL and DFP to satisfy DEL and DWP that it could deliver the contract. How did it do that? By subcontracting the work to Northern Ireland contractors and taking 15% or so of the overall cost.”
“We have taken those words and slightly adjusted them in order to meet the approval of the Bill Office — they might even meet the approval of the House — and to probe that issue. It may be that, when the Minister replies, he will be able to say that, actually, it is taken care of in some other subsection of that clause. I cannot see it there, but I am prepared to be convinced that what is in that draft clause captures what the Human Rights Commission recommends in respect of private contractors. <BR /> <BR />The reason why it is so crucial that we have absolute certainty in respect of this is partly the point made by Mr Brady about what the private contractors do or do not do when it comes to the treatment of claimants, but it is more than that.”
“We reworded that amendment because the Bill Office indicated that there might be some issues about it. What the amendment states — we tried to reflect this as faithfully as we could, consistent with the advice of the Bill Office — is:”
“The only other point that I will make about that time is that, as Hansard will confirm, my argument was this: let us stretch parity. Those are the words that I used. I went further and said that, if we were going to look at the issue of parity, we should do so in a discerning and not a reactionary way. I recall, as Hansard will confirm, that Ms Ní Chuilín complimented me and said that my approach — to stretch parity — was the right one. <BR /> <BR />I move back to the amendment on private contractors. The Member for East Antrim has left, but this is the one part of the Human Rights Commission's submission, which runs to 20 or 30 paragraphs, in which an amendment is drafted for the consideration of Members. It gave advice in respect of many aspects of welfare reform. This is the one where it went further and drafted an amendment.”
“I was replying to Mr Maskey's colleague, which I was entitled to do. If we are not going to talk about the past, perhaps Mr Maskey will scold Mr Brady, because he brought up the past.”
“I will in a second. <BR /> <BR />They were not even going to cause a Division, never mind table a petition of concern against all of that. Therefore, if there is history around welfare reform, it is history that applies to more than one individual or one party. <BR /> <BR />As everybody in the House knows — whether they admit it or not, Hansard confirms it — I repeatedly put down markers in the Chamber about what was happening in May and June of 2010 and in November 2010 when I came back to the House to tell it about the scale of what Iain Duncan Smith, as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, was about to deploy around universal credit and welfare reform. Members including Mr Brady and Ms Ní Chuilín said that, when it came to those issues, I, as Minister, was on the same page as them.”
“Mr Brady said in the Chamber that he would not seek a Division on the welfare reform legislation that I was bringing through the House at that time. You may want to criticise me over Atos or the welfare regime that was working itself through at that time, but Mr Brady and Sinn Féin on the Floor said that they were not even going to cause a Division —”
“In my time at DSD, I looked at ways in which I could go through it, get round it or go over it, and I was not able to do so. I did not go in the direction of Atos with any enthusiasm. In fact, it was quite the contrary. I tried to find ways to deal with the issue. Did I anticipate that Atos would potentially end up in the hole that it ended up in? Yes, I did, but I was not able in the circumstances at the time to do what, left to my own devices, I might have done. <BR /> <BR />I have to say to Mr Brady that there were no petitions of concern presented to us or any other party in respect of any aspect of welfare reform legislation at that time. If Mr Brady reads the Hansard reports of debates on welfare reform in June 2010, he will see that he said that his party would not seek a Division. That was in June 2010.”
“If I were to damn you, Mr Brady, you would know that it was not by faint praise. Whilst I wish every candidate well, I know that Justin McNulty will win well. <BR /> <BR />Putting that aside, I will not second-guess Mr Brady when it comes to his knowledge of welfare. Indeed, he is right to call me to account on Atos. I was the Minister, so, if, on my watch, something did not work, went belly up, was not quite right or ended up with a private contractor getting out of a contact because of the way things were done, you are right to call me to account. It should be exactly the same for every other former Minister. It will be no reassurance to Mr Brady — officials in DSD will confirm this — that I struggled with that contract being made.”
“What I said on those occasions and say it again now is that Mr Brady is probably second to none in the Chamber in his understanding of welfare operation and practice. I do not think that anybody would dispute that. I did not dispute that in 2010 and 2011 when bringing legislation through the Chamber as Minister for Social Development, and I do not dispute it now. He has a wealth of knowledge. That, by the way, is no endorsement of Mr Brady when it comes to events that might arise in Newry and Armagh, where it is game on —”
“Amendment No 4 deals with private contractors, and I will respond to the earlier comments from the Sinn Féin Benches. If it is the case, as Mr Brady outlined, that he opposes the privatisation of work in relation to welfare — I presume that he means welfare in this instance but also more generally — and if that is the point of principle, Sinn Féin should have tabled an amendment to force a vote in the Chamber on that point of principle. Mr Brady said that Sinn Féin opposed the use of private contractors, so it follows that it would table an amendment, but Sinn Féin has been silent. <BR /> <BR />I say this because I was rereading Hansard from the time when I brought welfare reform legislation through the Chamber.”
“in respect of schedule 1, paragraph 7. Given the scale of those words and the fact that it has not been legally tested in Britain because there has been no universal credit pilot for EU migrant workers, it seems to me that a precautionary approach informed by the Human Rights Commission is the right one. For that reason, we make this recommendation in respect of schedule 1.”
“Here we have the Human Rights Commission saying that, whilst the Minister has endorsed the human rights compliance of the Bill:”
“The report outlines who they were in terms of personal budgeting, money management, debt advice, the Housing Rights Service, improving benefit take-up and so on, yet the experience is that virtually none of the people who were signposted to any of those agencies went there. We should learn from that by making our amendment to the Bill. <BR /> <BR />As you might have gathered, there is no particular order to this. I will move on to amendment No 27 to schedule 1. Once again, this advice comes from the Human Rights Commission. If I may, I will read into the record its statutory advice to the House for work-related requirements and schedule 1:”
“I cannot fully recall the figures, but a very significant portion of those who were being given advice under the pilot — I think that it was 46% — and then had to be signposted to generalist and specialist advice agencies did not go there. I also have to say that there was good experience in the SSA/DARD pilot, and I do not want to diminish that in any shape or form. Nonetheless, there is real evidence that the balance of the argument lies in putting access to the independent sector in the Bill. In general, I refer Members to all my comments about the advice sector at Consideration Stage. <BR /> <BR />I will conclude my point on these amendments by saying that 1,493 claimants out of 2,758 FSS interviewees — that is over 50% and is probably 56% — were signposted to generalist or specialist advice-giving agencies.”
“The argument that I make to the Minister is that, if we are to recognise — I think that he recognises this — that there is a need to give advice to claimants, given the general circumstances and the particular context of welfare reform and universal credit and the hard experience of that pilot — the report is from May 2014, so it is very recent experience — it is the independent sector that needs to be in the Bill. That by no means precludes in-house advice, but advice on the basis of that evidence must, in my view, be in law, referencing the independent sector as well as in-house sectors. I urge the Minister to consider those points over the next couple of hours before a vote is taken. <BR /> <BR />The Minister will be aware that the report outlines all the signposting of claimants across the range of their needs.”
“<BR /> <BR />I put it to the Minister that, when it comes to the issue of a statutory right, if it ends up that the statutory right concentrates its focus in respect of the life of the Social Security Agency, then you might replicate the hard experience of this pilot, where it is clear that the SSA, for all its capacity, was not able to give all the advice to a claimant that was necessary and that the claimant therefore had to be signposted to generalist and specialist independent advice-giving agencies. What happened? The claimant did not go there.”
“The Minister's own report says that. Even though there was a pilot being run across DARD, the Social Security Agency and others, whereby enhanced advice was being given to claimants, what did they have to do? They had to signpost those claimants to go off to the independent sector because they did not have the in-house capacity to give them all the advice that they needed when it came to managing all their affairs. What was the consequence when people were signposted to speak to the advice sector on generalist advice? It was that no claimants — not one — took up the opportunity. At the same time, there was only minimal take-up of specialist advice.”
“I have read that report over the last number of days, and I would rely on it when it comes to why we believe that the independent advice amendment should be supported. <BR /> <BR />The Minister will be aware of what the trial concluded. On the subject of measurement of success criteria, the FSS evaluation report and letter states:”
“The background to our amendment is what the Chamber has endorsed and what the Committee acknowledged when it took evidence from the independent advice sector. <BR /> <BR />I make the point that the law should, in particular, refer to independent advice and assistance because of some of the experience that we have had in recent times when it has come to the Department working with other agencies in order to give advice. As the Minister will be aware, the Social Security Agency has conducted a financial support service trial that involved the agency, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Public Health Agency. It was an effort to build up the advice being given to people from a certain client background.”
“First, if you look at the evidence that the Social Development Committee took from the independent advice sector in 2013 and check the Hansard record of a debate in the Chamber in 2013, you can see that it was unanimously viewed that the independent advice sector was highly valued and very important in ensuring that those who sought advice were given all the advice that they required. Given that that was the very strong view of the Social Development Committee and the unanimous view of the Chamber when a motion on advice-giving was tabled, I think that the Chamber, its Members from all constituencies and all its parties know the value of independent advice. We have said it to ourselves and to that sector about the role that it plays.”
“I know that it is not the intention of the Minister, but it could lead to the potential, especially in a situation where there could be more austerity from London over the next number of years, for the statutory right to give advice to fall to the Department. In that moment, in order to ensure that it lives up to the statutory right to give advice, the independent sector is diminished and diluted. That is at the core of the discussion and the decision that the House has to make in respect of the amendments regarding independent advice and assistance or advice as set out in the amendment from the Minister. <BR /> <BR />I urge the House, given the need to protect the independent advice sector, to accept the SDLP amendment. In doing so, I rely on a number of arguments.”
“It is for the Minister to talk about the advance in his thinking, but, in anticipation of it, he has tabled an amendment in respect of advice to claimants. <BR /> <BR />Maybe I am breaching confidence here; if the Minister indicates that I am on the wrong side, I will restrain myself. When the Minister said to me and Mrs Kelly that he was minded to bring forward an amendment in the terms that are on the Marshalled List today, my immediate reply was that the word "independent" was missing. Whilst people can take advice from the advice sector, the word "independent" being missing is a major deficit.”
“At Consideration Stage, we did not move the amendments that were on the Marshalled List at the time in respect of advice and assistance; I think that they are now amendment Nos 17 and 23. As the Minister knows, as I, as a previous Minister, know, and as other people in the House know, one of the devices of making good law is not to move in order to have some further conversations with other parties or the Minister to come to a better outcome. That is why we did not move the amendment in respect of advice and assistance at Consideration Stage. I got a sense that the Minister's mind was more open than might have been anticipated in that regard. Consequently, there have been useful conversations with the Minister, and they have made some advance.”
“I do not want to repeat my point, but the point is that the Human Rights Commission is saying, "Here are additional mechanisms to build into the legislation", based on its right to give us statutory advice. It believes that that is completely consistent with human rights standards and can enhance protections. That is the point. I would like to think that, if people freed themselves from the constraints of the normal debate in this place, they would, based on what the advice sector or the human rights sector is saying, endorse amendments from the SDLP or Mr Agnew. <BR /> <BR />I will respond to other points that have been made by other Members when I go through the various amendments. The Minister might want to correct me on this; I may well be speaking out of turn.”
“In any piece of legislation that goes before the Assembly, the Minister has to declare that it is human rights-compliant. I had to do it, Mr Storey has to do it and all Sinn Féin's Ministers have to do it; they have to declare that it is human rights-compliant. I would have expected Mr Brady, as somebody who has been involved in the passage of many Bills through the House, to have read, I think, the back page of any Bill that he might have been involved in to satisfy himself that the answer to his question is in the Bill. <BR /> <BR />My point is —”
“I will shortly. If he could get out of the straitjacket of Stormont House, he might wear a different suit when it comes to contributing and voting on these amendments.”
“In my view, if people could extricate themselves from the straitjacket, which is how they seem to view Stormont House, many of these amendments might be acceptable. I think that it was Mr Brady who said that.”