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 27 of 32.
“Thank you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. You did not call it the bedroom tax, nor did you try to lodge a petition against it or approach Sammy Wilson, who was so concerned about this precursor to the bedroom tax that he would willingly have joined you in opposition to what Margaret Ritchie was trying to do.”
“Did you even come and ask anybody? Mr Wilson now says that the precursor to the property tax was in 2007. You did not need our votes in 2007; all you needed was two or three Sammy Wilsons.”
“If you were so concerned that this was the precursor to the bedroom tax, which you and Sammy Wilson now, in a pseudo way, pretend that it was, why did you not petition at that time to block it? If you thought that this was going to open the door to penalties for tenants across Northern Ireland in the private, Housing Executive and housing association sectors — indeed, in every sector — why did you not petition? You were right to raise concerns.”
“I will. That is a far different creature from that.”
“I am surprised by that contribution because, for the last two years, we have been talking about the bedroom tax. What is the bedroom tax? It is saying to somebody in a rental property, "You have to get out of it, and, if you are staying there, you will have to pay a punitive price for so doing". That is the bedroom tax in law, and everybody knows what that means. Regulation of a previously not properly fully regulated market when it came to private property —”
“I will. <BR /> <BR />Regulating the private rented sector to the benefit of the tenant and the state and not to the benefit of profiteering landlords is not a bedroom tax. The legislation, which has been updated regularly by the Housing Executive, put down established and identified rental market areas in Northern Ireland so that there was a template against which to judge market rental for private properties in each of those areas — clearly, rental properties and prices vary depending upon the section of the Northern Ireland — with the intention of delivering affordable social rents to make it fairer or less confusing and to remove unjustified differences between areas and within areas to have a rental regime that tried to create a similar rental for similar properties in similar areas. That is not a bedroom tax by any description.”
“I will give way in a second. <BR /> <BR />What was that law meant to do? It was to regulate the private rented sector. Why should it not be regulated? If there were landlords profiteering, especially at the height of the property market, by increasing rents disproportionately to either the quality of the property or the rental market in that area, is it not right for us to legislate to put constraints on the private rented sector?”
“He was, of course, referring to legislation that the House passed in 2007, the Welfare Reform Act, which addressed the issue of local housing allowance, not for people in the Housing Executive sector, not for people in the housing association sector and not for people who were getting housing support from health and social services, from a charity or from a voluntary organisation. It was from none or any of those sectors. It was in respect of the local housing allowance for the private rented sector, and there is no provision for a bedroom tax in the law that was passed in 2007.”
“We think that there are some issues around social security law and European requirements in that regard. <BR /> <BR />I will move to the issue of the bedroom tax. I see that Mr Wilson is still not in the Chamber. With some encouragement from people to my right, he tried to sustain an argument in the House last night that the SDLP's opposition to the bedroom tax is somehow less than fulsome and honest because we were the people who brought the bedroom tax into Northern Ireland. I will find the words that were used by Mr Wilson last night. He said:”
“<BR /> <BR />In terms of our opposition to clauses 61 and 63, advice has been received in the past from the Law Centre and the Northern Ireland Council for Ethnic Minorities. I can give you an example of what the concern might be. If somebody in Northern Ireland has been given permission or leave to remain and is therefore entitled to work and is working, and the leave to remain is withdrawn, they will have contributed to the state, but they may not be able to access benefits. This is one of the issues that has been raised. In circumstances where there is a contributing person who has been entitled to work, but whose circumstances change and who is then not entitled to work, but is yet to leave the state, will the welfare system under clauses 61, 62 and 63 and the benefits named therein accommodate that person to get assistance?”
“We know that, of all our amendments, this one might have some consequences in terms of cost, but we ask that some minds be applied to the issue that the benefit cap should not apply to child benefit or carer's allowance and benefits, care and responsibilities because we do not think that, in any circumstances, vulnerable children and adults should be at the front line of what might happen next, and that we should anticipate and legislate accordingly against all that. <BR /> <BR />I will just refer to some other amendments. My colleague Mrs Kelly spoke to amendment No 2, which is a minimum change that has a good benefit in reducing waiting day provision from seven to three days. On amendment No 28, we have had some conversations with the Minister. If he says what I anticipate he will say, we will not be inclined to move that amendment.”
“I urge the Minister to consider those matters in going forward. <BR /> <BR />I will return to our amendment on the benefit cap. What we are saying, at the heart of it — and this is probably, in terms of cost and of the principle of parity, which I always said that we should stretch the limits of and then, on occasions, went unilateral in breaking in respect of not tabling regulations, although I suspect that once I was out of office, someone somewhere in the Department rectified that. I have never been able to actually clarify who failed to follow my best advice, but, in any case, the point that we are trying to make is that, in the context of London's ambitions on welfare, how that might work itself through and how that might impact on the benefit cap, caring benefits should be exempt.”
“That was a very shrewd political commentator on 'Channel 4 News', who is very familiar with this part of the world, so, in passing, I will make that point as well. What difference will a statutory right to advice make? This is what they conclude:”
“A person who is detained under mental health powers can access legal advice further to a European Court decision, Winterwerp v Netherlands, which is further reflected in our draft mental health capacity Bill, which contains a specific right to independent advocacy. <BR /> <BR />My argument is that, in the backdrop of where we are on welfare reform and in the foreground of what might happen on the far side of the election, whoever is elected over there, and, as you indicated earlier, talking to everybody, I will just refer in passing to the fact that Channel 4 said two weeks ago that the balance of power could come down to the SDLP MPs, and put a big logo up to advertise the fact.”
“You can imagine that, in terms of health, mental support and all the rest of it, that is the consequence of independent advice and assistance. <BR /> <BR />As I indicated yesterday to Mr Beggs in an intervention, we are already showing some good authority in that regard. Our own Chamber legislated in the Housing (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2010 — I think that I put that through the House myself — that every person in Northern Ireland has the right to access free advice about homelessness and preventing homelessness, so we have already opened the door on statutory advice. The door is wide open, and rightly so, when it comes to other areas of public service. <BR /> <BR />When it comes to a person being questioned about a criminal offence, they have the right to free legal advice under PACE.”
“What that will mean is that it will reduce poverty, benefit local communities and reduce social exclusion. Those are not just more meaningless words; they are proven in empirical evidence. That is the consequence of maximising benefit uptake and having a good customer journey through the benefits system. It improves the quality of decision-making, so there will be fewer complaints to our offices about what is going on in the various offices, and it helps clients avoid stressful crisis interviews. One estimate in a paper from the citizens advice bureau — I think that it is the citizens advice bureau in Britain and Northern Ireland, not just here in Northern Ireland — is that £1 invested in welfare advice has £8·80 potential savings to the state.”
“It referred to the fact that advisers interview people; help the person prioritise their problems; provide up-to-date advice about available benefits; help complete applications; advocate at appeals, if necessary; help people liaise with Departments; and refer externally to other forms of appropriate crisis intervention. I put it to the Minister that the scale of that is greater than the good work that is done within the welfare offices because, inevitably, they are more constrained than taking an expansive and inclusive approach to advice giving, as is outlined in those seven approaches. It empowers claimants to resolve their own issues and maximises income by promoting benefit uptake, which is currently one of Northern Ireland's main priorities. Remember what your predecessor said, Minister, in October 2013:”
“It comes back, Minister, to the fact that, if you give all the assistance to the claimant, you can maximise the benefit to the claimant, reduce the risk of a negative assessment, avoid going to an appeal, and, at the end of it, the quality and experience of the life of the claimant and their family is going to be that much more different. If we can front-load that in order to maximise that journey to the right outcome, we should take the opportunity to do so. <BR /> <BR />The briefing that I am going to borrow from is the Northern Ireland Advice Services Consortium briefing. This is not a stand-alone advice agency; this is the consortium of people who give independent advice.”
“To be fair, it tracks back to the days of direct rule and worked itself through both SDLP and DUP Social Development Ministers, so, whatever the tensions may be in the Budget and even whatever the tensions may be within the independent advice sector — I will not go there — nonetheless the Government have shown some level of good authority when it comes to funding independent and in-house — more in-house than independent but nonetheless.”
“Therefore, I encourage him, over the next while, in response to this matter to indicate where his thinking might be generally for Further Consideration Stage on this and other matters. <BR /> <BR />What is this about? I acknowledge that there are a lot of good people giving a lot of good advice in-house in the Social Security Agency, the Child Support Agency and so on. I am not denying that. Some people suggest that, when you gather together all of the money that goes into that pot, be it in-house or in the independent sector, it might be £4 million or £5 million. That is a very significant contribution.”
“That is why we should put some of the amendments from Mr Agnew, from the Ulster Unionists and from us into the Bill. <BR /> <BR />I will also speak about a number of amendments that I urge the Minister to consider further. He is aware of the two amendments that have been tabled in relation to independent advice and independent advice and assistance. I think there is a difference, and, whilst we will work with the Ulster Unionists in that regard, we think that our amendment, because it refers to assistance, is also very important. Can I explain our thinking? I have a sense that the Minister's mind is not as closed as a petition of concern might suggest. I will maybe put it that way, if that is not too cryptic or generous.”
“It will be more than £23,000, because that will not cut it for David Cameron if he is re-elected. It will certainly not cut it for George Osborne if he continues to be Chancellor. That is the context in which the matter has to be considered. As somebody wrote just a few months ago:”
“We are getting an early warning from London about how they will look at this place when it comes to how we administer our business, be it the Budget, corporation tax or welfare, which is a reason why we should build into our primary legislation the protections that I urged on you earlier about independent advice, the benefit cap or other aspects referred to in the amendments, including naming the issue of victims and survivors in the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Let us be clear about it — this is the final general point that I want to make — universal credit is coming to a shuddering halt. Cabinet and Treasury know it, and they will now take control of it. The consequences of that, as we said yesterday, will be more penalties and more cuts to the welfare baseline, including the benefit cap.”
“He did not take the opportunity, Minister, to say that, in the future, be it on welfare, Budget or corporation tax, which is what he was talking about in the context of the Select Committee, he would rule out the fact that, if Northern Ireland's public finances, in the view of the Tories, were not on a sustainable footing, there would be a big stick waved in our faces once again, as we have experienced over the last two years.”
“<BR /> <BR />One of the reasons I say that is the exchange that I referred to yesterday between Mark Durkan and Mr Gauke, who is a Treasury Minister, at a Westminster Select Committee. I am sorry that Sammy Wilson is not here because he was at the hearing. He was remarkably quiet at the hearing, and I wanted him to be here so that I could enquire about that. This is the reply to Mark Durkan from Minister Gauke when he probed him on what might be the approach of London in relation to a heavy stick being used if our funding here in Northern Ireland was not on a sustainable basis. This is relevant to welfare and to the benefit cap. This is what Mark Durkan said:”
“As I said, there is a new broom in DSD, and that seems to me to indicate that you, at least, are thinking to the end of the next year, whereas maybe your predecessor was thinking about the last century. We will not go there for the moment. <BR /> <BR />Given that recognition, I come back to the group of amendments, which, I reassure you, I am talking to. It is about the benefit cap, and that is why, when I come to it in more detail, the amendment about the benefit cap is so important. If the analysis is right and there is bad news coming from the Tories if they win and, potentially, bad news from Labour if they win, we need to anticipate where all of that is going.”
“That is only the first part of the menu, because the tensions in the British Government between DWP, Treasury and the Cabinet Office mean that, without any doubt, the balance of power was always with the Treasury and the political strategy will now be defined by the Cabinet Office and Treasury, not by DWP. We need to anticipate what the shape of things will be on the far side of the election, in the first weeks after the election, including, potentially, what Labour might get up to on where welfare is going.”
“<BR /> <BR />If I were to put money on it — that is more my brother's inclination than mine — I would say that, at the moment, the Tories are planning their first strikes in the event that they are elected. We know that from, if nothing else, David Cameron's recent contribution about reducing the benefit cap to £23,000, but it will be more than that. Remember what happened after they were elected in May 2011. There was an emergency Budget in June 2011 where they made their first slash at welfare, followed by the November paper from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions where the ambition of universal credit was outlined. We are heading, Minister, for a replay, because it is up in lights already from David Cameron's contribution of a few days ago.”
“I hope that that will inform how the Minister approaches the amendments that will be debated today that touch on those issues and many besides. <BR /> <BR />The reason why we have amendments such as that on the benefit cap in this group is that it is our view that we have not seen the half of it with welfare reform and what the ambitions of a future Tory Government might be when it comes to the benefit cap. It is now openly talked about that, on the far side of the election, the British Government will try to have further austerity, as they see it, of £30 billion. Indicatively, £12 billion would be the welfare contribution to that austerity budget. We are saying today in the context of all our amendments but particularly that on the benefit cap that we have to anticipate what will be the shape of things very soon from now.”
“<BR /> <BR />Everybody knows that there is a new broom in DSD. I am not going to say much about the previous incumbent, but everybody knows that there is a new broom in DSD, and I would like to see the fingerprints of all that in how you respond to the amendments today. It would be no mean achievement if, at the end of today, recognised in our law were victims and survivors, the need to give advice and assistance, what may be the case on the far side of the Westminster election with the benefit cap, which one of the amendments in the group deals with, and the idea that the issue was so important that the Assembly said to itself that it needed particular oversight measures for welfare now and in the future.”
“I gave them the morning off, Minister, or they said that they did not want to listen to me any longer: you can make your choice. <BR /> <BR />One point that struck me yesterday was when the Minister said that this all came down to people. My variation on that story is that last month the 'Andersonstown News' reported that the first food bank in west Belfast was shortly to open. Those are the sorts of facts and experiences that should inform how we approach today. I say to the Minister that I am inclined to talk about Ministers who are in government and those who are in power. There is a big difference between the two. The Scottish Nationalist Ministers, together with my colleague to my left, demonstrate those who know the difference between being in government and being in power.”
“I am inclined to say that I am speaking to a packed and hushed Chamber surrounded by my party colleges, but, clearly the latter point is not correct. I think that the former point is more correct.”
“Will the Member give way so that an explanation can be given?”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. <BR /> <BR />I did not once hear from the Member opposite in endless meetings of the Executive, week after week, when he and his DUP colleagues were saying, "Get the Bill into the Chamber and through the legislative process". Not once did Mr Wilson say that there was any need, any reason or any money to mitigate the bedroom tax. Not once. Now he makes a virtue tonight, to quote the former Minister, of mitigating what was going to have that impact in his reference to the bedroom tax. Not once, Mr Wilson, did you make that argument in all your time as Finance and Personnel Minister —”
“I thank the Member for giving way. To prove his worst fears true, can he confirm something? You and I sat around the Executive table for a period, and you and some of your colleagues were the most insistent that the Welfare Reform Bill be brought through the Executive to the Chamber. I never once heard from you, Mr Wilson, in all —”
“Is it not also the case that, in 2010, the Assembly put into law the statutory right to advice for people in situations where there is homelessness, or a risk of it? The Assembly has already, in particular circumstances — I am sure it was a Social Development Minister who did it — put into law a statutory requirement to receive advice in respect of homelessness. Under PACE law, every citizen in Northern Ireland is entitled to legal advice in the event that they are arrested further to a claim of criminal conduct. It is not a matter of principle in terms of the life of this part of the world, and it is not even a matter of principle when it comes to the law in respect of particular matters in this part of the world. Is that not a catalyst for the Minister to respond positively to these amendments?”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. I also acknowledge his very comprehensive response to the debate, which is the right way to conduct the debate. Some of the answers — I will not put it any more strongly than that — have certainly been helpful to us. <BR /> <BR />Given what you have said in respect of victims and survivors; the sorry tale of how the VSS operated previously; the entitlement to name in legislation the categories of persons to be treated with due regard, as happens already for domestic violence victims; and given your powerful narrative just now about the experience of victims and how they should not be let down, does that not lend to the conclusion that a provision, even in simple terms in legislation, is the right response to the right needs that you have identified?”
“The Minister will know that Scotland has an equivalent fund. On a cross-departmental basis, Scotland gathered £5·5 million of its devolved moneys, in addition to any moneys from London, to try to shape and work up an equivalent of an independent living fund. I ask the Minister to confirm whether the current provisions run out in 18 months. If so, what will happen, on the far side of that, to the independent living fund?”
“This is another clause that we struggled to define in the best possible way because this is a contentious issue, and there are matters of dispute with definition. That is why we left it in the way that it is drafted so that, in consultation with the Victims' Commission, provisions could be put forward. <BR /> <BR />I believe that there is no dispute in the Chamber on the requirement to try to legislate or provide for victims and survivors in the best possible way. Let us take the opportunity to do that in the Bill and in that way send out a message to all sectors that, for whatever reasons, feel or are vulnerable, we will provide welfare protections. <BR /> <BR />I understand that Mr Ramsey will speak on amendment No 17, which is about bringing forward an independent living fund structure.”
“We tried to draft a form of words, and I know that, at one stage, Sinn Féin tried to draft a form of words for how that provision might work, and it is very difficult. That is why we asked the Minister to put forward regulations to capture more than domestic violence and to be informed by the police and prosecuting authorities on what is the right shape in regulations for the issue of hate and how that is managed through the welfare system. <BR /> <BR />I move on to deal with amendment No 53. This is a moment in our history when we can send out messages of deep authority to sectors of our community that, for various reasons, are vulnerable. That is true of the provision that we proposed on hate and the provisions in new clause 130C, "Impact of Regulations on Victims and Survivors".”
“<BR /> <BR />I also want to deal with the thinking behind amendment No 13, which tries to broaden the provisions for domestic violence and incidents motivated by hate. The issue of incidents motivated by hate has an immense public profile, and it has had it over the past number of days. Look at the disgraceful attack on the Kingsmills memorial and other incidents. It has been a narrative over the past period. I say this without trying to open up another debate, but if you speak to people from the Rainbow Project, they will say that, because of recent publicity around certain issues of discrimination or alleged discrimination, there has been increased instances of attacks on people from the LGBT community. <BR /> <BR />Hate in our society is something that we need to try to broaden our thinking on, and that is the purpose of the amendment.”
“The message was, "You will stand and deliver", and on the far side of the election there will be more "stand and deliver" if the Tories get re-elected. Why do we build maximum protections into our law? We do so because we need to legislate to ensure that we do it right here and to send a message to London that we are not going to do it in the way that it might choose. <BR /> <BR />If you accept the logic of Mr Robinson's argument, we should just put everything in guidance. Any advice that we are giving to the Social Security Agency, the child support sector and all the rest should just be put in guidance by that logic. We put it in the place of maximum protection, which is in primary law, not the primary law in the regulations. If the Minister can reassure on some of that later, we may be minded to not move some of our amendments.”
“Oh, right. I was in the Social Security Agency — sorry, DSD — and one of my observations from my one year there was that, too often, DSD was more an outreach for DWP than it was the Department for Social Development of the Northern Ireland Executive. Let us not be naive about this: DWP is the shadow over all of DSD and the SSA. Although I have immense respect for our staff, the leadership and the management, including in children's services, where there are some extremely committed people, let us be very clear: we know to our cost how London tries to impose its will and will not face up to the particular circumstances in Northern Ireland. Is that not what the penalties are about? Is that not what London's failure to enter into negotiations in Stormont was about?”
“How do you send, Mr Robinson, a message to London that says, "Hands off our welfare system"?”
“I will in a second. <BR /> <BR />Over and above all that, in the roll-out of universal credit, when it comes to assessments, including those of mental health, without giving any increased priority to due regard of mental health, there should be recognition of it as an issue that affects a lot of our claimants, in order to ensure that our staff in the SSA do all that they can when it comes to the assessments to make sure that that matter is taken into account.”
“<BR /> <BR />It seems a long time ago now, but when we were negotiating the issue of the Police Ombudsman and trying to convince Maurice Hayes to go for a maximum position in relation to that post, Seamus Mallon made the point — it was not me, I was just in the margins — at a meeting in Cambridge, in September of whatever year it was, at the British-Irish Association conference, that a good system of police complaints was a sword against those who were on the wrong side of good practice and a shield for those who were on the right side of good practice. It is the exact same now. We can protect our claimants and our staff in the event that London should come seeking —”
“Go and read what a London Treasury Minister said or did not say to Mark Durkan MP in a House Committee just a week ago. <BR /> <BR />Let us not be naive. If London can, London will try to impose its will on our system. The best way of ensuring that it does not is to put into our law the protections for our staff and for our claimants that, in our view, would arise from having due regard for the claimant's skills, experience, caring responsibilities and physical and mental ill health.”
“<BR /> <BR />If you want evidence to corroborate that argument, who would have thought a number of years ago that, when it came to welfare reform, London would suddenly decide that it was going to impose all these penalties to the point that Theresa Villiers was unable to answer the question as to why the penalties were £87 million at that time? If you want corroboration, look at the questions that Mark Durkan MP offered last week in London to a Treasury Minister at the Committee that is dealing with the Corporation Tax Bill. The Minister would not commit himself to say that he would not use the heavy hand of London again in order to ensure that, in the context of the devolution of corporation tax, we had a balanced Budget and a sustainable basis for the Budget.”
“I apologise and withdraw that name. I was in the Minister's seat once, although only for a year. When I heard about people beating up on Social Security Agency (SSA) staff because they were off sick with stress, I remember what I said to some of the people who came out with that claim at that time. These people were on the front line with people in need, some of whom were going to be belligerent, and they needed our protection. They need to be protected, and if DWP starts looking over here to set targets and impose penalties and punishments on claimants, we need to protect our staff from the heavy hand from London.”
“The issue of mental ill health is a theme that is tracked through three or four of our amendments. We would say to the Minister that if he accepts that the profile of mental health in the North is as acute as it is — one in 10 of our people are on disability benefit and it is one in five in Britain — and if you are going to protect those people and those in the welfare system who are conducting the interviews and making the assessments, then one way of protecting everybody is to say to them, "You have a statutory responsibility to look at the issues of skills, experience, caring responsibilities and physical and mental ill health" and to say it to your own staff and for Mr O'Reilly to say it to his staff. <BR /> <BR />I know a lot of those staff. I apologise; I should not have mentioned an official, although I mentioned him positively.”