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 25 of 32.
“I will give way to the Member if he has something to say. He said something from a sedentary position that he is not prepared to say on his feet. Putting that aside, the question is whether we heed and pass into law the statutory advice of the Human Rights Commission, which all of us established in 1998 through the Good Friday Agreement and the Northern Ireland Act. <BR /> <BR />The other amendments, Mr Speaker, come from the advice sector. Two that relate to advice, assistance and information are a matter of taking their advice and trying to pass it into law. Are we or are we not, Mr Speaker, and, through you, Minister, going to have a new broom or old dust? We have to make that call over the next period.”
“The issue for the Chamber, whatever the claims and counterclaims over Stormont House, and I will come back to that, is this: are we are going to hear the advice of the Human Rights Commission?”
“The commission then details eight or nine other conventions that inform the advice of the Human Rights Commission. The irony is this: the amendments proposed by Mr Agnew and by the SDLP at Consideration Stage are consistent with that advice, even though we did not then have the value of the statutory advice of the Human Rights Commission. It also informs many of those amendments now. <BR /> <BR />The question that falls to Members has not been fully answered by the other parties. It has been answered by Mr Stewart Dickson, who said that he is not going down the road of adding extra weight to this Bill, even though it is the advice of the Human Rights Commission.”
“This is not made up by the SDLP; this is statutory advice given to the House. If there is weight to what we say, it is the weight of the Human Rights Commission, and Members should acknowledge that rather than play games with good advice given to each party in this House, which, clearly, people to my left will ignore during the debate. <BR /> <BR />The Commission goes further and says that it bases its position on the full range of internationally accepted human rights standards, including the European Convention on Human Rights, as incorporated by the Human Rights Act 1998, something that Mr Brady may wish to reflect on, given that he did not accept an intervention from me earlier on the very point that we should build into the Welfare Reform Bill certainty that private contractors will comply with the Human Rights Act 1998.”
“<BR /> <BR />We established the Human Rights Commission, which, in its briefing in advance of Further Consideration Stage, said:”
“Our thinking on many of these amendments relies on that of the Human Rights Commission, which, Mr Speaker, sent you a paper that you then — I point out to the Member for East Antrim — circulated to the parties after Consideration Stage. <BR /> <BR />What is the Human Rights Commission? It was set up by the Good Friday Agreement — let us remember that — because of the law, order and justice issues around which our conflict revolved. The wisdom of the Good Friday Agreement consisted in resolving the issues of law, order and justice, which is what the Patten report, the criminal justice review, the Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission were meant to do. It created an architecture that ensured that issues of law, justice and rights were properly managed, unlike in the past.”
“Far from it. I say to all Ministers that you have to demonstrate sooner or later whether you are just in government or are in power. I think that there is an opportunity today, despite some of the chat across the Chamber, which I will respond to in due course. <BR /> <BR />I was struck by the Member from East Antrim's comment that the SDLP amendments are about adding "cost and weight" to welfare reform. I say to the Member that the weight is not from us. The weight that we are relying upon is the statutory advice of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Perhaps you want to dismiss the SDLP today, but you are under a legal obligation to listen to the Human Rights Commission's statutory advice.”
“I think there is a new broom, but the consequence of a new broom is that there should be new thinking, or will we just have more of the old dust thrown up in people's eyes?”
“Mr Beggs, I think, was probably acknowledging that early in his contribution, before the Minister replied to him. I am not sure whether he will be of the same view following that last exchange. The issue today is this: if there is a new broom in DSD, will there be new thinking?”
“First of all, Mr Speaker, I apologise that I was not here when I was called during topical questions yesterday. I was on my way to the Hart inquiry in Banbridge, where Margaret McGuckian, one of the group's leaders, was giving her evidence. I realised that at 12.03 pm yesterday, but that was after the 12.00 noon deadline. So, apologies for missing that question. That is the background to all that. <BR /> <BR />I said at Consideration Stage:”
“I will come back more substantially to the point that you made, but is the logic of your argument not to ensure that, if there are private contractors appointed, arising from welfare reform, they comply with the Human Rights Act (HRA)? That is what amendment No 4 does. So, taking the point you have made about ensuring that private contractors live up to the best standards, if they are going to be involved, should you not now conclude by supporting amendment No 4, which ensures that they will have to comply with the HRA?”
“I thank the Minister for her answer so far, but, to be more specific, where are we with export licences for relevant products for America? It is one thing to work with Simon Coveney, which is very welcome, but, if we are not able to access the same markets for some of the same products, it is hard to work with somebody in those circumstances.”
“That should be the spirit in which the Bill goes back to the Committee. Remember what the Executive did: to a man and a woman, they endorsed radical proposals for a road training regime, with only one of its members — I will not name that person — saying no.”
“I am going to ring the police before I leave here to say that they should follow Mr Wilson home, because he must be breaking the speed limit every time between here and Larne, or wherever he lives. <BR /> <BR />It may have been facetious, but it is not a serious contribution to make in a debate about a deeply serious matter, as outlined by Mr Ramsey in his opening contribution, as, no doubt, he will do again in his closing contribution. It is too serious a matter to be reduced to commentary about somebody being hit by a car at 10 mph less not having a chance of survival. It is too serious a matter to have comments made about signs being for the minimum limit not the maximum limit. <BR /> <BR />People should listen again to the contribution that Mr Ramsey made. You can challenge his evidence, but you cannot dismiss all of it.”
“He said that he found out to his cost when he thought that a speed limit sign was for the minimum speed limit, not the maximum. If that is the case, I am going to ring the police —”
“It was shocking — you know where I am going with this.”
“This is why these issues should be interrogated by the Committee. One thing that we should not let go is Mr Wilson's comment as a former road safety Minister, senior politician and Member of Parliament.”
“<BR /> <BR />I know about that because I was in the audience not so long ago. I was apprehended for speeding, and I can remember the incident very clearly. It was the day that the Hallett report came out, and I was returning to my family up on the north coast when I decided to pass a vehicle. As I did so, I knew that I was going to pass the speed limit, but I did it anyway and was caught. I opted for the course and I remember that film. I remember, Mr Wilson, the consequences of reducing your speed by 10 mph. <BR /> <BR />Mr Wilson's contribution, some of which needs to be interrogated by the Committee, was enormously revealing. I do not deny that, if there is an evidence base, you need to interrogate it to come to the right policy conclusion. Mr Ramsey will accept that point, as should we all.”
“Whilst we are right to interrogate some of the issues that Mr Wilson raised, we should hear the voice of the Executive in a similar context in order to ensure that this Bill is given the full opportunity that it needs over the next 40 weeks of sitting time. <BR /> <BR />I make the point, however, that Mr Wilson said that reducing the speed limit from 30 mph to 20 mph would not give anyone hit by a vehicle a chance. Hansard will confirm that he said, "not got a chance". That is Mr Wilson's argument on the Bill: reducing speed by 10 mph does not give anyone a chance. If you speak to any individuals who, rather than going through the courts for a speeding offence undergo retraining through the education course, they will tell you about a film shown about the consequences of reducing speed by 10 mph on the risk of death and serious injury.”
“All of this is in response to what he said, not that I want to be preoccupied by that, and I do not think that we should be. Nevertheless, I come back to the Bill by making this point: when, eventually, there was a discussion at the Executive table, at which Mr Poots and Mr Wilson were present, about the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill currently before the Environment Committee, it was Mr Wilson — this is relevant — who made the same arguments as he made today. What was the response of the Executive? I particularly recall the contributions of the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and the Enterprise Minister. The response of the Executive was unanimously, save Mr Wilson, to endorse the policy proposals. That should be our approach today.”
“Ask the people who produce those ads, track the audience response to them and monitor, in public attitude surveys, the response to those ads. There will be those who find the images so graphic and shocking that they turn over, but many will watch and learn. There are many reasons for the improvement in the figures for road deaths and serious injuries, and one of those is the power of adverts to drive home messages into people's minds and hearts. There may be anecdotal evidence that people do not like some of the ads, but there is empirical evidence that the vast majority of the population generally view them as making a necessary impact in their life and one that might result in a necessary change in their driving conditions. <BR /> <BR />It is reasonable to respond to what Mr Wilson said.”
“I will in a second. <BR /> <BR />They tell the story of why the Bill is before the Committee in respect of road traffic limits. That narrative, those pictures and that experience — the silence of the schoolchildren when they saw the ads — was at a time when we had declining road deaths. Over two years, there were fewer than 60 road deaths each year in Northern Ireland, which is the lowest in recorded memory. On this island, North and South, we have a spike when it comes to road traffic deaths and serious injuries. In that context, having spoken to a number of the families and victims who were brave enough to tell their story in those advertisements on TV, I think that that is why the Bill has to be given every fair wind. <BR /> <BR />In passing, I refer to the fact —”
“Those ads, which have received multiple international awards because of their quality, tell the story about the threat to people on our roads, the reason why the Bill is before the House and why the Bill has to go before the Regional Development Committee —”
“I will come back to that. I hope that both Members feel suitably embarrassed, one because he has been contradicted by his colleague and the other because he did not know that a Committee is looking at some proposals that were developed during Mr Poots's time as Environment Minister. <BR /> <BR />The point of all that is this: I do not know whether Mr Poots or Mr Wilson viewed the road traffic ads when they were produced by the DOE road safety branch in consultation with private consultants, but I did. They used to be shown in a cinema on the Dublin Road. When they were about to be put into the public domain on TV, we used to call in schools to view the new ads.”
“As Mr Poots spoke, the face of his colleague to his left, Mr Wilson, went even more beetroot red than it normally is. Very shortly, the man to the right of Mr Wilson will have an equally red face. Mr Wilson, as I will outline in a minute, tried to oppose the very thing that Mr Poots has argued for. The very thing that Mr Poots has argued for is currently before a Committee of the House.”
“I will in a second. I acknowledge the Member who is about to speak because I think that that consultation was initiated by Mr Poots as my predecessor. In that regard, I give way.”
“Some of Mr Wilson's comments would suggest that he is in denial that he also had that responsibility at one time. I remember one occasion when officials came in to see me following a public consultation about the driver training regime. I think that 24 or 25 recommendations had been tested through the public consultation, of which they thought four or five were feasible. I went home and thought about the recommendations before deciding that I did not agree. As a consequence, we took forward probably half or slightly more than half, if my memory is correct, of the recommendations from the public consultation. My one regret in that regard is that I was not even more radical than taking up that dozen or so recommendations, because I believe that some of the recommendations that I did not take forward at that time I should have taken forward.”
“<BR /> <BR />I ask the Minister to confirm that the weight of his Department will be behind this Bill, because there are only 40 weeks left of sitting time in this mandate. Therefore, the passing of the Bill into law during that period, if that is the will of the Assembly, will require — partly, but not very much, for some of the reasons articulated by Mr Wilson on the Floor this afternoon, to which I will return — the weight of the Department and not just the personal and political weight of Mr Ramsey. I ask him this question: will the resources of the Department be fully pledged to ensure that this Bill gets to the far side of Second Stage? <BR /> <BR />Once upon a time, I was the Environment Minister and, as a consequence, Minister with responsibility for road safety.”
“I acknowledge, in his absence, the work of Mr Ramsey, who has incurred both personal and political obligations, and Mr Conall McDevitt, the original sponsor of this legislation. I do not intend to comment further, other than to say that sometimes Mr Wilson's need for theatre results in words coming out of his mouth that would be better kept inside his head. In any case, I also acknowledge earlier private Members' Bills passed by this House: Mr McCallister's Caravans (Northern Ireland) Act 2011 and Mr McKay's Carrier Bags Act (Northern Ireland) 2014. Both Members will confirm that it was in part the weight of the Department behind the Bill that ensured the resolution of many issues at Committee Stage and thereafter before the Bill eventually received Royal Assent and became law in Northern Ireland.”
“Even since the last OFMDFM Question Time, the voice of victims and survivors has become stronger, meaning that, at the very least, a scoping exercise should be done in respect of financial redress. Indeed, I believe that many victims and survivors will meet Church representatives this very Wednesday in Armagh and that they will press the Churches on that point. In those circumstances, is it not the time for the First Minister and deputy First Minister to pivot, to respond to the growing voice of victims and survivors and to begin to scope out financial redress?”
“I expected you to be inclined to make that argument, but one way to mitigate the situation would be to enhance the role of a new Committee for welfare reform, including welfare reform regulations. If the Minister is inclined to go in that direction, it could be a win-win situation. <BR /> <BR />Save for those matters, the substance of the rest of the amendments seems to be technical in nature, and we will support them.”
“Unless I am wrong, it is also responsible for looking at the regulations, so, if you were minded to go in the direction of a Committee, there is an opportunity to enhance its role for the regulations. <BR /> <BR />I have no doubt that the Minister will shortly present an argument that you do not want to overload and put disproportionate demands on the Committee and the House —”
“More than anybody else, we should acknowledge Mr Agnew. He is a lone Member representing the Green Party, but a great burden of amendments and contributions fell to him. Of all MLAs, he should be acknowledged for that reason. Given that the SDLP is sympathetic to his proposals in amendment No 21 and in other amendments, can further consideration be given, over the next couple of weeks, as to how to manage the regulations to maximise the level of accountability in terms of what the Minister might want to say this evening or later? <BR /> <BR />The Committee of the Scottish Parliament that I referred to does not have only a general oversight role in the implementation of the Welfare Reform Bill.”
“Michelle O'Neill knows, the Minister now knows, and I certainly knew that a big burden falls on Ministers in the passage of a Bill over a couple of days. I acknowledge that there has been no light touch from the Minister, and his responses have been comprehensive. Whilst those responses were manifestly lacking in multiple areas, I nonetheless acknowledge the Minister, his officials and others who had an input to his contributions. I also acknowledge all other Members because, whilst reckless approaches have been adopted to the management of business in the Chamber, which sent out an entirely negative and anti-democratic message to our people, the character of much of this debate might have sent out a slightly different message.”
“Sorry, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. I said that we would not be moving that amendment and that we would defer to the Ulster Unionists, subject also to what I anticipate the Minister saying in this regard. It will not be moved. That is correct.”
“St Andrews. In any case, we are looking for a triple lock. The triple lock is, first, the joint standards committee having the scale of oversight of the sanctions regime that we have referred to; secondly, we are looking for the committee in the House to have the oversight role that I referred to; and, thirdly, we are looking for, in addition to any commission in respect to the welfare cap, an annual reporting mechanism, starting with a six-monthly report from the commencement of the legislation that would make sure that we keep in the forefront of our minds this issue of the welfare cap as it rolls out over the next four or five years, the lifetime of the next Parliament, where it will be up for grabs in the minds of some who might be in Government not very far from now.”
“I hear that, and, consistent with the spirit of this debate from our point of view, we will not move that amendment in the event that you will consider to come back to this matter at Further Consideration Stage and without prejudice to the position that the SDLP might take. I think that our amendments create a triple lock. I think that that phrase is borrowed from some previous negotiation. I cannot remember which one it was, but there was certainly something about a triple lock. I should remember, and Mark Durkan would correct me.”
“If accuracy, in your view, extends to standards and quality of decision-making, that might be some reassurance, but we need to know that it is the standards and quality of decision-making, as opposed to this word "accuracy", which seems very precise. Is it precise for a purpose, and is the purpose to ensure that the interrogation of what is happening with sanctions goes so far or —”
“You can anticipate what I am going to say. We are not flying a kite here. We have reason to believe that certainty around this issue in terms of interrogation of the sanctions regime is something that the joint standards committee would like to be reassured on. I say that with knowledge, and therefore I say to the Minister, noting what you have just said, that there is a facility already under law to interrogate to confirm to the House that, when it comes to the work of the joint standards committee and when it comes to the quality of decision-making, it does extend to the sanctions, and not just the accuracy of them. "Accuracy" is a very precise term, and I am sure that, somewhere, some lawyer has defined it. We are saying that you have to look at the standards and quality of decision-making.”
“— and the appropriate body in this case, in our view, is the joint standards committee, which, as you know, is chaired by Eileen Evason.”
“We are trying to give it a dedicated power to create certainty, avoid doubt and make sure that there is no breach in communication and understanding, and to give to the Northern Ireland joint standards committee for the Social Security Agency and Child Maintenance Service the dedicated ability to look at the standards and quality of decision-making with regard to sanctions. We have spent the last hour or two debating one group of amendments, the title of which was "Sanctions". We are arguing that if it was of such importance that there was a dedicated debate in the House for the last couple of hours on sanctions, then we need to have dedicated mechanisms to ensure that, when it comes to decision-making on sanctions, it is being interrogated by the appropriate bodies —”
“I think that that is important data to inform them in their business, and it would be important data to inform us in our business. I urge the Minister that the dedicated Committee would send out a clear, unambiguous signal that it will remain very attentive to the issue and look for further data, research and potential remedies in the event of the worst of welfare reform visiting our people. <BR /> <BR />The third amendment is to give an enhanced role to the joint standards committee. At the moment, as the Minister is aware, there is a joint standards committee that annually reviews the work of the Social Security Agency and child support.”
“Its reports demonstrate that there is a capacity for a Committee of a devolved institution to add qualitatively to the understanding of welfare reform. For example, in 2014, it published its fifth report, and that was a very detailed assessment, undertaken with Sheffield Hallam University, on the impact across the Scottish regions of welfare reform. <BR /> <BR />We need to be aware that there could be a differential impact of welfare reform in Northern Ireland. I do not intend to read it into the record, because time is rushing on, but it goes through to the point of looking at the electoral areas and wards that were hardest hit; at the impact on households and individuals; and at the loss to the overall Scottish economy by the reduction of spend due to welfare reductions.”
“No. I do not think so. We believe, for example, that there should be a dedicated Budget committee of the Assembly, separate from the Finance and Personnel Committee, in order to have ongoing oversight and monitoring of the Budget and Budget opportunities. It is not to undermine but to enhance Departments' accountability on issues to Members on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. This is not either/or; this is raising the threshold of accountability. I would be a bit surprised if it looked as if the rug was being pulled from under the Social Development Committee and that its authority was being usurped. <BR /> <BR />The remit of the Scottish Welfare Reform Committee, and we have borrowed the words as accurately as we could, is this:”
“Far from it. You could make an argument that some of the stuff that is going on in the Social Development Committee undermines the Committee itself —”
“<BR /> <BR />The second amendment consistent with that oversight principle is amendment No 55, which proposes a dedicated welfare reform committee of the Assembly. In that regard, we are only following the example of the Scottish Government. They do not have devolved responsibility for social security, and I acknowledge that, so we are dealing with a different character of devolution. Nonetheless, I do not think that anyone disagrees about the scale of what is happening, if it happens. Given the scale of that, would it not be appropriate to build into the architecture of the Assembly a dedicated, stand-alone committee to do what the Welfare Reform Committee in the Scottish Assembly does?”
“The matters that I deliberately read into the record this morning, about the exchange between Mr Mark Durkan MP and the Treasury Minister in respect of the potential for more stick when it comes to corporation tax, all demonstrate that, when it comes to budgetary matters, including welfare, we need to be highly vigilant. So, without disagreeing with your last point about the commission, we think that this amendment builds into the architecture of this place a more ongoing, continuous model. I think that it will serve you well, Minister, because if there is bad news coming in terms of the welfare cap, you will want to be on this Floor in order to advise us what is coming and what can be done and put us all on red alert, because that would be the consequence of some of the ambitions of the current London Government.”
“What happens after a couple of years when the commission reports? Are we then going to say that we are not going to have ongoing vigilance and monitoring of the welfare cap? What our amendment does is build into the life of the Department and Assembly an ongoing assessment of welfare expenditure in Northern Ireland in the context, among other things, of the welfare cap. So our process is a long-term one not a short-snap assessment by a commission. I do not say that there should not be a commission. Expert work needs to be done on this, and I am not going to be in denial. We need to keep our eyes wide open.”
“Those are the critical additional words beyond your own amendment, Minister, on the financial arrangements governing and applicable to welfare expenditure. If there is a welfare cap of that character, a notional one for Northern Ireland, what is going to happen on the far side of this election when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he is still in place, says, "I am going to do more business around the welfare cap; I am going to reduce it." What would be the consequences here? I give way to the Minister.”
“It was Mark Durkan again who probed that issue, because he was not sure whether there was a welfare cap for Northern Ireland. He thought that there probably was because of the devolved arrangements for social security that mean that we live in a different character of a place when it comes to welfare. He thought that there might be a notional welfare cap, and it was the advice of people with knowledge that there is one. <BR /> <BR />The reason why I made that point is to justify the wording of the amendment, which, in our view, goes far beyond your amendment about reports to the Assembly. Our amendment states:”