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 26 of 32.
“He also introduced mechanisms so that, if you transgressed that top line, you would have to come back to the House of Commons to get approval for any excesses. That has not been relied on to date, but, if the welfare cap was reduced, it would be very interesting to see how DWP and us in DSD and the SSA would operate under a lower radar. The point of that is that the issue of the welfare cap has become very critical. The Tories have set it at a certain level, introduced a legislative mechanism that has to be relied on to override it, and mischief can be made. <BR /> <BR />Minister, you will recall from the Stormont negotiations that advice was given to the parties that there is a notional welfare cap for Northern Ireland.”
“There was an exchange between, I think, the Prime Minister or the Chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition. In the course of the contribution by the Leader of the Opposition, Ed Miliband, when he was referring to the benefit cap, he said to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that what he really needed was a welfare cap. Mark Durkan would tell you that you could see the lights going on in the Chancellor's eyes. "I will have some of that", he said to himself, and a short time later, that is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer did. He came to the House of Commons, and through whatever was the appropriate mechanism, he introduced a welfare cap and set a top line for the welfare budget.”
“<BR /> <BR />Minister, given the length of time that we have had to come to this point, the scale of universal credit and the ambitions that the Tories, in particular, might have on the far side of the election, we need to build into the architecture of welfare delivery in Northern Ireland and the architecture of the Assembly the means of oversight, accountability and interrogation that demonstrates to welfare claimants and your staff in the Social Security Agency and the Child Support Agency that the Assembly will be very attentive and vigilant as things are rolled out over the next number of years. That is what informs the three amendments from the SDLP: amendment Nos 54, 55 and 56. <BR /> <BR />Minister, if Mark Durkan MP was here, he would recount a true story to you of what transpired in the House of Commons some time ago.”
“We want to gear up the oversight and interrogation of what is happening with welfare reform and its operation in Northern Ireland in a way that guarantees, as best we can, that issues are identified, problems are rectified and the House is fully informed.”
“<BR /> <BR />The purpose of the other amendments that have been tabled the SDLP is to ensure that there are appropriate thresholds of oversight and accountability when it comes to welfare reform and its implementation in Northern Ireland. Obviously, I will not rehearse the narrative that we outlined earlier about the scale of what is proposed, the risks of what might happen, the experience of Britain with the roll-out of the implementation of universal credit in the event that that happens in Northern Ireland and all the evidence that has gone to the Select Committee. That is all on the record, but all that which is on the record informs the comments and thinking of the SDLP when it comes to the amendments.”
“I do not accept that it is necessarily the case that information coming from Britain is sufficient for our purposes and that it would be a waste of resources to do otherwise. I also do not accept that there are instances where duplicating the GB pilot is acceptable. Whilst there is an issue with information technology, in that it is generic, if you like, and can therefore be applicable in any part of Northern Ireland or Britain, I am not necessarily convinced by the argument that the Minister might present. I may be anticipating all his arguments, so I apologise for that. In any case, I think that the Ulster Unionist amendment is more appropriate, and I hope that it will be accepted.”
“<BR /> <BR />I think that the Minister appreciates that there is a data gap in Northern Ireland where the implementation and operation of welfare policy and law generally are concerned. There is a general issue that there is not a data profile for welfare. We need to recognise and acknowledge that by rolling out pilots as quickly as we can where we can in advance of any proposed welfare system going live. I accept that the time limit of six months that we put in our amendment is too prescriptive; therefore we will not be moving it. <BR /> <BR />However, I do not accept some of the other arguments that the Minister might be minded to make on pilot schemes in general in the North. For example, I do not believe that, given the population of Northern Ireland, the sample size is not sufficient to run pilot schemes.”
“Let me make it clear to the Minister, who said earlier that he was not an agent of the Department for Work and Pensions DWP, that I never made any argument that you were a covert human intelligence source for the security branch of DWP. Can we just clear that up? <BR /> <BR />Let me also say that I can feel it in my bones that we are going to get more from the Minister in this group of amendments than we have had heretofore. I hope that I am not jumping my fences. <BR /> <BR />I will indicate first of all that, whilst I will speak to amendment No 20 on the pilot schemes being brought forward within six months, we will not move that amendment and will be supporting that of the Ulster Unionists, if it is moved. In indicating that, I will make a small number of comments.”
“You did speak to it in your opening remarks, but will you confirm precisely — because there is a bit of a muddle in the minds of some — the consequence of what you are proposing in terms of caution and penalty or no caution and just penalty? If you could clarify that, it might clarify whether there will be opposition to clause 115 later in the debate.”
“That is why, at this stage, we suggest that you err on the side of those arguments rather than on the other side. In particular, I do not think that the SDLP amendment does any violence, Mr Wilson, to your argument or to what is in the Bill by stating "fifteen days", because it gives the person at least 15 days. It gives you the flexibility in the period thereafter, so you have both the flexibility and the certainty for the claimant in that regard. <BR /> <BR />In concluding, I will raise a point that Mrs Kelly raised and that, I think, is also in the mind of Mr Agnew. When it comes to opposition to clause 115, what precisely does that clause mean?”
“I do think that, in our situation, given the scale of suicides in Northern Ireland, we need to be particularly mindful of how we can manage that to ensure that the apparent evidence that is emerging in Britain will not be replicated here in the event that universal credit ever gets off the ground. <BR /> <BR />All of that informs the judgement of the party, both of the amendments proposed by Mr Agnew and the amendment proposed by us. It is to try to build into the body of legislation a regime that does protect the individual claimant and draws some conclusions, whether the application of those conclusions is fully justified or not, from the apparent evidence that is beginning to emerge in Britain about how the benefit-sanctions regime impacts on the lives of customers.”
“<BR /> <BR />In that regard, the final authority that I will rely on in this debate is the evidence that DWP had to undertake 49 peer reviews of claimant management cases because of the deaths of people, where those people had taken their own life. Perhaps the Minister will be able to indicate that. There is a wealth of knowledge across Northern Ireland on addressing the needs of people who are self-harming or at risk of suicide. There are indications from Britain through stories in the media, and through a level of evidence that is beginning to appear, that potentially one of the contributory factors to all of that was the benefits-sanction regime that was imposed on them.”
“<BR /> <BR />Moreover, the evidence has begun to emerge that people who are sanctioned disappear from the benefits regime. One person, Professor David Stuckler, again of Oxford University, gave evidence that 43% of people who are sanctioned leave the world of DWP and the welfare system. They are "disappearing from view", he said in evidence. We note the Minister's amendments and welcome that that is certainly an advance. The point again, however, is that, even if the regime is a more moderate regime than might otherwise have been the case, there nonetheless seems to be a critical case developing in Britain, where up to 43% of people who are sanctioned in one area or another might end up disappearing from view.”
“They said that sanctions were a postcode lottery; there was initial evidence that suggested that, for example, one in 10 benefit claimants in Derby, Southampton and Burnley was being sanctioned, but that, if you lived in Richmond, Ellbridge or Runnymede — are they in the south of England? — the chances of being sanctioned were one in 50. That comes from the University of Oxford, which is an authoritative source. You can speculate on all the reasons that that might be the case, and I think that people do not know why there is such a disproportionate difference, but we need to ensure that, as the regime rolls out through the social security offices, that sort of postcode lottery on an initial basis does not begin to be replicated here.”
“In that regard, the Minister will be aware that one of the unions in Britain — the PCS — said that undue pressure had been put on its members to meet targets with the sanctions regime. I have absolutely no doubt that there will be no such pressure applied here if pressure was applied in Britain. However, we have to warn ourselves about that. <BR /> <BR />I will also refer to the conclusions of other people who made representations to the committee in Britain. I will not read it all into the record because I think that you are getting my drift, Minister — perhaps not, but I would like to think so.”
“I never maintained that DWP had an undue influence on you. I am a bit more cautious about whether that is the case for others. However, putting that aside, I think that you can manage our benefits system in a way that suits our circumstances. Certainly, my experience when I was in your job was that there were many people, some of them not too far away from here, who applied their minds and their time to work to that outcome. I am just saying that, in addition to taking the knowledge of the many groups that are working with your Department on the management and roll-out of welfare reform — I know a bit about that from having spoken to the head of the Social Security Agency — there is stuff in London, in the Mother of Parliaments, as Mr Wilson referred to it this morning, that can inform the judgement of the Department as we move forward.”
“When it comes to the management and application of sanctions in the event that universal credit is rolled out — you know that I do not believe that it will be rolled out but that it will crash after the election should the Tories get re-elected, and, I suspect, sooner or later, should Labour gets elected — and all this happens, should we not be looking at the experience of Britain and how sanctions might or might not apply in Northern Ireland?”
“Kirsty McHugh, the chief executive of the Employment Related Services Association, called for an overhaul, including the introduction of an early warning system, which could be used at first offence rather than imposing a sanction. Whilst I do not think that we will be able to convince the Minister about our amendment or other amendments, I think that there is a lot of good authority in what all those organisations are saying to the Select Committee in London.”
“He said that, in too many cases, it takes too long for claimants to secure redress if they have had their benefit withdrawn.”
“I do not know that I would even go that far, because I am not calling for a sanctions-free welfare system. On the other hand, somebody with the authority of that organisation drew that conclusion. <BR /> <BR />Paul Farmer, the chief executive of the mental health charity Mind said that sanctions among those on employment support allowance had risen from 1,700 a month to 4,800 a month, adding that there had been a disproportional impact on people with mental health problems. Chris Mould, the chair of the Trussell Trust, said that there had been a radical change in the way very disproportionate decisions were being taken since the latter part of 2012, adding that it was clear that some job centres were being more punitive than others.”
“I agree with much of that and disagree with some of it. That is the nature of life and of this Chamber, certainly. Given that you have clearly done the homework in relation to what Matthew Oakley might say, I also recommend to you what was said at the very same Select Committee hearing that Matthew Oakley attended in relation to the evidence of the Employment Related Services Association; the Trussell Trust which is one of the main providers of food banks; the mental health charity, Mind; and the Centre for Social and Economic Inclusion. In recent evidence to the Select Committee, during the two-and-a-half-hour session when Matthew Oakley gave his evidence, this is what they all said in respect of sanctions. <BR /> <BR />Tony Wilson of the Centre for Social and Economic Inclusion said that sanctions:”
“I will in a second. Matthew Oakley might have said that the DWP needs to monitor and be careful how it manages its sanctions regime, but he went further and said that it would be wise for the Government to undertake a general stocktake of the system. He called for a much broader review of what is happening as well as making particular recommendations with respect to the sanctions regime.”
“<BR /> <BR />This is what has been in evidence to the Select Committee on Work and Pensions at Westminster in the last three weeks. The Minister referred to Matthew Oakley.”
“You referred earlier to a reference that I made to one of the in-house DWP people who was making assessments around how universal credit is operating. I think that there is much to learn from the growing narrative in Britain about what is actually happening in the real lives of people, and I have done that in this debate as best I can. For that reason, when it comes to this overall group of amendments on sanctions, it is important that we begin to acknowledge even what has been said in the last three weeks on how sanctions in Britain are working and what conclusions we might draw from that. The conclusion that I draw is that we should try to go for a lighter sanctions regime, one that is fair and reasonable, when we have the opportunity to go in that direction.”
“At least we can agree on the word "fair". That is my conclusion from that contribution. To some degree, we are all talking in a vacuum, because universal credit has not been rolled out very far in Britain and has not been rolled out at all in the North. Given that and the fact that we are in a bit of a vacuum, I have tried, in any contributions that I have made over the last two days, to borrow from the narrative that is growing in Britain about what is happening as a consequence of welfare reform.”
“The Minister will be aware that I sometimes have a sense that DSD and the Social Security Agency can be perceived as being the outreach of DWP; there might have been echoes of that even in the last contribution. There were echoes of it in the Minister's opening remarks, when the words that he used for the overall sanctions regime were "tough but fair". If ever I heard DWP language, that was it. The regime that we should try to have and should have been trying harder over many years to have should be fair and reasonable and fair and proportionate. Those should be the standards against which to judge any sanctions regime. It should not be "tough but fair" but fair and reasonable. It may be a fine point, and I am sure that you want to correct the record.”
“I suggest to the Minister that the argument that somehow creating a statutory right to advice captures the advice sector in government is not the best of arguments. Citizens have the right to independent legal advice if they are arrested. I am sure that nobody is suggesting that David Ford has somehow captured the legal profession when it comes to its actions, given the events of recent days and months. <BR /> <BR />Are you minded at all, Minister, given your forthright remarks on the matter, to consider a further amendment at Further Consideration Stage?”
“The Minister was right to identify the long-term issue of the profile of the housing stock in Northern Ireland. In the short term, the critical question is this: if someone decides that there is a significant change in a tenant's personal circumstances and there is suitable alternative accommodation, and the tenant says that they do not wish to move from their three-bedroom house, will they be subject to the bedroom tax?”
“I will press you further. A lot of people get paid in arrears. You and I get paid in arrears — I think. They have spent the money in advance of receiving it. There might not be that much money left to cover the costs for a week, especially if you are low paid and if you have family needs.”
“The Minister has reiterated his commitment to people, and that is accepted. I refer you to your remarks on amendment No 2, when, subject to what Hansard says, you said of claimants that it is reasonable to expect people to carry their own costs for a week before accessing jobseeker's allowance or ESA. Is it reasonable to expect somebody with a lot of children or who is on low pay to carry those costs for a week? In those circumstances, is three days not better and, in any case, would a three-day flexibility not be covered by any headroom that exists or does not exist in the overall notional Northern Ireland welfare cap?”
“I remember saying to him that, in my view, that indicated false values and a false approach to dealing with people in housing need or maintaining them in their accommodation. To be fair and accurate, he looked somewhat crestfallen and embarrassed, because in that moment the mask had slipped and the dogma of London on the bedroom tax was clear for all to see. It is not about what they claim it is about; at its heart, it is that they will penalise the social tenant because the private tenant falls on hard times.”
“He had a conversation with us that should echo in the ears of everybody in the Chamber when it comes to the bedroom tax. The conversation went like this: he said that, because of the recession, it was inevitable that people were losing their houses. People who had a big mortgage and lost their job had to give up their house. He said — this is nearly a quotation — that it was not fair that somebody living next door in a house of the same size and getting housing support should be allowed to live there, if the other person had lost their home. Think about that: because somebody suffers difficulty to the point of losing their home, the person next door should lose their home as well.”
“My question to the Minister is this: is there some indication of flexibility on the notional welfare cap that might enable things to be done below that notional threshold in a way that mitigates the impact of welfare reform beyond anything that is named in any documents that came out of the Stormont negotiations, including the five-party understanding? Is there anything in that regard? <BR /> <BR />I will conclude with this remark; I have probably referred to it in the House. When I was the Minister for Social Development, the then Minister for Employment and Learning, Lord Empey, and I had a meeting with Chris Grayling, who is now the Justice Secretary in London but was then a junior Minister in DWP. From what I understand, Mr Grayling is one of the more dogmatic of the Tory high command.”
“<BR /> <BR />I remind the Minister of the points in my opening remarks about naming in the Bill victims and survivors, independent advice and assistance and where we might go with the benefit cap and so on. As I said, I have a question for the Minister about the welfare cap. This became a major matter of discussion at the Stormont negotiations: was there some flexibility that London was giving to us with our notional welfare cap that might accommodate more flexibilities on the administration of universal credit, if it ever ends up being administered over here? You know my view on that.”
“To Mr Brady's embarrassment, Hansard will confirm that my colleagues the Minister of the Environment and the deputy leader of the SDLP asked you on a number of occasions to give way, but you declined. Then, all of a sudden, you gave way to your partner in crime — I am sorry; I will withdraw that remark because it might be inappropriate — your partner in petitions on the first occasion that he asked you to do so. Yet, when Mr Durkan and Mrs Kelly asked, you declined. I ask Members to reflect on any and all of that. <BR /> <BR />Is there another amendment that I want to speak to? Give me a second, please. I do not think there is, so I will conclude my remarks because I have probably gone on longer than I had anticipated.”
“I do not know what you are talking about, and nor do other parties in the Chamber. I do not understand what this document is. Documents were produced, discussed and interrogated, and options A, B, C and C+ for mitigation were looked at and so forth. I recall that, during one session on, I think, 17 December, our party said that, if there was a mitigation package of up to £100 million, we were prepared to look at it. We were raising the issue of the welfare cap, which I want to raise with the Minister in a moment. We began to flag up the point that I made earlier, which is whether London's practices on welfare of waving a stick and imposing penalties will be replicated when it comes to corporation tax.”
“I checked with other parties. Yes, I was there.”
“I also want to comment on the claim that there is a four-party deal and a five-party deal. Last night, Mr Brady said that he had a document, and he was waving it. There were certainly documents in the talks at Stormont, but no document was signed off on until the five parties moved to that conclusion. I have checked because I was mystified by what was being claimed.”
“You can sign it as well, Minister, if you are so inclined. A petition of concern would mean that that issue could be more conclusively addressed today. Why should it be done? London knows that the bedroom tax, a bit like universal credit, is dying a slow but painful death. It is painful for the people who suffer from it. It has cost too much. It has not had the outcome that London intended. It will be abandoned sooner or later. Labour has already said that. The Liberal Democrats are jumping ship, and the Tories know that the bedroom tax is not long for this world. We encourage people, at this late stage, to send out that message to London and to our people and to honour the words of people in the Ard Fheis and in statement after statement that the bedroom tax is not going to exist in practice or law in this part of the world.”
“I was getting guidance. Anyway, it is not too late to sign the petition of concern. If you go out that Door, turn right and turn right again, there is an office called the Business Office. In there, a petition of concern is waiting.”
“The issue that I was going to talk about was the bedroom tax. It is not too late. Sinn Féin signed the petition of concern about the bedroom tax —”
“With their lives. I recognise that. I am not somebody who denies the pain and grief of people in the republican family. I acknowledge that, as victims and survivors, they require support. I will finish this point very quickly. People on this island paid a hugely disproportionate price for those who took up arms and may have lost their lives when there was a democratic alternative and a mandate for democratic change. Violence was resisted in election after election by the people of the island. There was a constitutional alternative. The violence succeeded only in dividing our people more and more.”
“My party leader issued a statement yesterday saying that the party to my right was rattled. When people hear — hopefully, it will be recorded in Hansard — that a member of Sinn Féin has said what he has just said about paying for their lives for a democratic mandate —”
“It claims a democratic mandate, which is its right to do because that is the will of the people of Ireland, but it flouts democratic practice in the Chamber, as, unfortunately, was done for decades on this island at a terrible cost to so many people on this island.”
“Comments from a sedentary position are always very revealing. What is revealing about that is how people to my right now rely on a democratic mandate, which we have never taken away from the people of Ireland, to beat up on other parties. They flouted a democratic mandate for 20, 30 and 40 years. Even in the last day, they continue to flout a democratic mandate by resisting the right of legislators to bring forward amendments to Bills and hiding behind petitions of concern to ensure that the will of the majority prevails come what may. Sinn Féin should look long and hard at its purported claims to want to lead anti-austerity Governments when it leads an austerity Government in the North.”
“It is you who has the responsibility to mitigate the impact of all that on our people and to vote through a Budget that is the best deal possible. <BR /> <BR />Mr Adams says that he wants to lead an anti-austerity Government in the South after 2016. He wants to lead an anti-austerity Government. Well, he should come North and see what it is like to lead an austerity Government. We will see what the Irish people have to say.”
“Do not pretend today that what happened in 2007 was the precursor to the bedroom tax and the cause of all the profiteering that goes on in the private rented sector.”
“Does the law provide that, in every set of circumstances every tenant is protected from landlord excesses, when, as in other parts of these islands, people have to rely more on the private sector because of austerity budgets, of which one is about to be passed in this Chamber? <BR /> <BR />We were told that it is the best deal possible, and yet it will see people losing their houses. Why? Because they will not get wage increases. Why? Because they will not have enough childcare support. Why? All the reasons inherent in that Budget will see people losing their homes, resulting in them being thrown to the private sector and to some of the profiteers with whom you and I would rightly disagree.”
“You and your colleagues, and colleagues across the Chamber, used the words on multiple occasions last night. There was one precious moment when Sammy Wilson gave way to Mr Brady because they were making common cause and thought that this was their moment, and they nearly felt a wee bit embarrassed. As is so often the case with Mr Wilson's contributions, his need for theatre gets in the way of the facts. <BR /> <BR />Last night, you were willing accomplices as you tried to pretend that action was taken with caution and mindful of the risks to create a proper regulatory regime.”
“I will make a number of comments. I notice that the Member does not now use the words, "bedroom tax".”