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 28 of 32.
“I will give way in a second. That is why we have put in a reference to the Department having:”
“If we could just go to that point, that is why —”
“We tried to craft them in a different way, based on maximising support for the claimant, minimising penalties and maximising oversight on the far side of the claimant journey.”
“I say to the Minister — I have had the conversation with him already — and to Mr Robinson that, if it had been left to me, you would not have known the scale of amendments that we would have had on the Table this morning and this afternoon. We were actually quite measured in that we recognised that there were cost consequences of amendments from us and other people to the point that, if you actually look at our amendments, you will see that very few of them have significant cost consequences. That is our view.”
“Ministers and civil servants have come in for severe criticism. External experts, many of whom supported the principles behind universal credit, are unsure whether the system can ever be made to work, even several years later. That is one commentary from an expert in welfare reform. I could read out — I will not — multiple ones, because you want me to get back to the Bill. The question is this: if that is the narrative and if this is a crash that the Tories fail to recognise — except, I think, the Chancellor — do we not owe it to everybody to take time today to get some more of this right? If we do not, we will repent at leisure as we see the full scale of what London intends to propose. <BR /> <BR />I turn to the amendments. I do not intend to make many comments about them, except to highlight a number of themes.”
“Let me deal with it. We do not dispute, Mr Wilson, that there is a need to simplify the welfare system and to intensify working with claimants in order to maximise their skills and job opportunities. You do not get any dispute on that, but do not pretend to me that that is what London is doing. <BR /> <BR />Six years on, the reputation of universal credit is in tatters. The integration of the six working-age benefits into universal credit is far behind schedule, with tens of millions of pounds of IT investment already written off and much more to come. The National Audit Office verdict has been damning, describing:”
“Yes, that is right. I went off and read the debate over lunchtime. I urge you to read that debate as well and see everything that I put down in my commentary both on that welfare Bill in June 2010 and in the statement that I made to the House in November 2010 in respect —”
“I do not dispute that. I was implicitly criticised by one of the Sinn Féin Members this morning for being the Minister who brought in some welfare reform.”
“I will in a second, Mr Wilson. <BR /> <BR />The point is that, if that is what a Select Committee has been hearing at Westminster every week over the last number of weeks, should we not take time this week to apply our minds to anticipate the harshness of what will follow if the Tories are re-elected in further penalties, further punitive measures, further collapse of the benefit cap and so on?”
“That is not scaremongering; that, Mr Dickson, is evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee, not just from individuals within the welfare system or from an insider who is employed by DWP to give best advice but even from those who are managing people in work programmes. They are all saying it.”
“He said to the Select Committee in the opening week of January this year that it would be wise for the Government to undertake a general stocktake of the system in view of the extent to which it has changed over the past two Parliaments. Their own insider is telling people, "Would you go off and have another look at it?". The weight of evidence is coming from people working in welfare offices, who are beginning to talk about how pressure is being applied to them to reach targets in order to impose penalties. Consider the fallout in terms of people who are disappearing out of the welfare system because the journey is too difficult for them and the penalties are too harsh, to the point that no one knows where they are going and so on.”
“I recommend that Mr Dickson and anybody else who has the time spends a little time reviewing the evidence that has emerged in respect of the roll-out of universal credit over not the last two years, 18 months or 12 months but the last five weeks. A Select Committee of the House of Commons has been taking evidence in respect of what is happening with welfare reform. Anybody who reads any of that would have to conclude that those who say to the House, to welfare claimants and to welfare organisations that this is scaremongering should hang their head in shame. They should read the Hansard record of what is happening at the Select Committee in London. <BR /> <BR />Matthew Oakley is the independent reviewer for sanctions appointed by DWP; he is DWP's man.”
“They are about trying to protect the claimant on their journey through the system so that they are maxed out in terms of their benefit entitlement and so that, when it comes to penalties, they are minimised in that journey and all that is subject to appropriate oversight. Those are the themes that run through all of this. <BR /> <BR />We should caution ourselves when it comes to the amendments in group 1 and thereafter — this is where I am now going to talk directly to those amendments. Mr Dickson's opening remarks were that this was all scaremongering — he referred to much of this as scaremongering.”
“I am coming back to the core of the amendments. It is probably best to explain to the House that our amendments try to develop thinking and practice around three themes, some of which were touched on by the leader of the DUP in his concluding remarks. People in the welfare world — I concur with many of them — believe that, if the Tories are re-elected, universal credit will fall flat on its face. George Osborne, as Chancellor, will say, "Why have we spent all this time and money on failed IT in order to deliver a universal credit system that doesn't do what it's meant to do?". For the Tories and the high Tories in government in London, it is meant to reduce welfare baselines and increase penalties. That informs our amendments.”
“Somebody once demanded the right to dissent because there was much to dissent from. It seems that that maxim has been forgotten in our politics, even though generations who served this community well demanded the right to dissent because there was much to dissent from and were far the better for it. <BR /> <BR />In response to the comments made by the representative of the Alliance Party — this takes us back to the amendments, Mr Speaker —”
“The answer to that is the answer that we have given every time: we will implement, as fully and faithfully as we can, that which is strong in the Stormont negotiations. We will try to correct and rectify that which is less strong.”
“<BR /> <BR />The notion is that we can say to victims and survivors, individually or organisationally, that, if we cannot get a group of four people up in that room to agree to amendments in respect of that issue before it comes to the Chamber, we will just have to swallow it. We will not say that to victims and survivors, individually or organisationally.”
“Can I just make this closing remark on that contribution? It is on the past. Members will know that one of our many points of dispute with the outcomes of the Stormont negotiations was the proposals on the past. The most acute of those was the proposal on how we should deal with themes, policies and practices of the past. We do not agree with the Stormont House Agreement on that. In our view, the vested interests in terror organisations and state organisations prevailed at Stormont House, ensuring that very little will happen on a proper interrogation of themes, policies and practices from the past, which are part of the narrative of the present and the future. That is our view.”
“I think he is right. Let me make this absolutely clear on behalf of the SDLP: the notion that the only amendments that can be moved on this Floor are those agreed as part of the Stormont negotiations in Room 106 in a corner of the Building is ludicrous and unacceptable. We will not live by that principle — I am coming to the Bill.”
“I think that it is unbelievable to them that petitions of concern would be deployed in this swingeing way. I normally do not play the man; I normally try to play the ball. I see that the DUP leader's speech was very much about playing the man, but, if I were to make a comment in that regard, it would be that, around 6.00 pm or 7.00 pm last night, Peter Robinson threw his toys out of the pram and did not even keep hold of his rattle. Let me make this absolutely clear. Although he might not agree with this, it seems to me that, even in his comments, the DUP leader is beginning to pull back from some of the contentions that he has made heretofore. He said:”
“Let me confirm, because it seems to have been missed, that the decision on the driving licence was mine. I know that you have visited all that misery on my successor, but it was my decision. I did not believe that, in the context we were in at that time in this part of the world, a flag that size on a UK named driving licence was a proportionate response in the difficult politics that we would have expected. <BR /> <BR />Putting that aside, the unbelievable part of what the DUP has done in respect of the petitions of concern is that we have spent two years — all Members are right about this — getting to this point, and we owe it to those who have made representations to us, lobbied us, argued for mitigation and travelled this long journey with us.”
“I would like to think that it would have been different.”
“Even if the likes of us are reduced, First Minister and DUP leader, to what you indicated was — how did you refer to it? — a free-for-all or something of that nature, we are at least trying to live up to the democratic authority that the people gave to the Assembly when it was endorsed in the Good Friday Agreement, rather than deploying a weapon relentlessly against amendment after amendment after amendment.”
“Never before in the life of the Chamber has there been such a swingeing attempt through petitions of concern to shut down what might be good law for the people of this part of the world.”
“From the Back Benches and from a sedentary position, the Member says, "Thanks for giving it to us." That is how they view the legislative authority of the Assembly. They think, "Thanks for giving Back-Bench DUP Members the power to block not just one or two amendments but to block virtually all the amendments". What state is Northern Ireland regional democracy in when a party thinks, "Thanks for giving it to us" about the power to ride a coach and horses through amendment after amendment? That is why it is unprecedented, although I note what the DUP leader said in his last remarks about where the debate might yet go and, as a consequence, I travel with a little bit more hope.”
“<BR /> <BR />Mr Speaker, when I heard that the DUP had tabled the petitions of concerns, I wondered whether it was Northern Ireland's GUBU moment. You and other Members will remember that acronym from politics elsewhere on this island. I concluded that it was not a GUBU moment but that what the DUP had chosen to do was just unbelievable and unprecedented. Whilst the First Minister — the DUP leader — is correct to say that not every amendment was petitioned, virtually every amendment was petitioned. It is unprecedented in the life of the Assembly for that sort of weapon to be deployed against that scale and volume of amendments.”
“We are not Members of a limp Assembly, and that difference has to inform the debate. We are MLAs, and I hope that all of us in the Chamber live up to that standard today. We need to guard it jealously because what we secured in the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement and other agreements were won through hard democratic struggle and negotiation. We should value them at all times, not least given the circumstances around welfare and the ambitions of this Tory Government and the next Tory Government, if they are re-elected. We have to send out a message today to our people that this is not a theatre, a talking shop or a limp Assembly; it is a legislative Assembly, and nobody has the right to usurp the authority of any party or any Member.”
“However, I congratulate you, despite my concerns about how all that happened. Putting that aside, I think that, thus far, you have demonstrated good authority in your role and in your commitment to upholding the standards of the previous Speaker. <BR /> <BR />There will be a third category of amendments that I anticipate that we will not agree on, regardless of the Minister's words or reassurances, if any are forthcoming. We will adopt that approach, and we will do so because we are paid and elected to be Members of a legislative Assembly. That was denied to many generations of democrats in this part of Ireland over many's a long year, and we are all the worse because of the fact that a democratic Chamber did not exist here to answer the needs of our people. <BR /> <BR />Today, we are Members of a legislative Assembly.”
“I will start by touching on the last point of the DUP leader's contribution; it will be the first point in mine. We have had this conversation with the Minister, and it remains our approach that, based upon some of that conversation, and subject to him saying what I think he is minded to say in respect of some of the amendments, it may be that my party will not move some of them. There may be a second category of amendments that — if the Minister shows some better authority over the next number of hours, either to accept our amendments or indicate what might come forward at Further Consideration Stage or otherwise — we might not move. <BR /> <BR />However, there will be a third category of amendments, Mr Speaker. In passing, I congratulate you on your elevation. I am probably the last Member in the House to do so.”
“In answer to the previous question, you rightly referred to the talent of our people in terms of their skills. That point was recognised last week by one of our entrepreneurs, who acknowledged that, because of the skills in Belfast, it has now become a digital capital. Does the Minister recognise that, on the far side of any reduction in corporation tax, there is a risk that regional imbalance will be compounded as businesses are attracted to Belfast because of the cluster of talent in Belfast, which may not exist in other parts of Northern Ireland? Do you recognise that as a risk that is proven by international experience, and will you outline how that risk might be mitigated?”
“— the issue of regional imbalance? The risk is that that imbalance will deepen on the far side of corporation tax being devolved.”
“In my view, the fact that we have 11 rather than 15 councils and that rates support is at risk in the way that it is and so on creates further difficulties for councils going forward; of that there is no doubt. <BR /> <BR />I have two final points for the Minister. The way in which you will deal with regional disadvantage should be tracked through the Vote on Account and the Budget. Look at what was said last week by one of our best entrepreneurs. He said that 35,000 jobs had been created in new industry and IT, but they have been created in Belfast. That situation will be compounded by corporation tax, unless it is done in a very discerning and regionally balanced way. How will we track through the Vote on Account and all the Budgets to come —”
“I ask the Minister this: given what is happening with budget lines on rates relief and general moneys going to the DOE for heritage-led development, how can that Department be expected to achieve the ambition of its mandate, which I read out earlier, when those are the consequences that it will have to live with next year?”
“How can the environmental crime unit do all that when the consequence of the Vote on Account is that up to one third of DOE staff might lose their job, separate from the members of staff who are going to the councils? <BR /> <BR />We have a situation in which, as the Minister will recall, close to £50 million was given to councils, of which £30 million was negotiated to try to mitigate the consequences of government reorganisation, given that some parties imposed the model of 11 rather than 15 councils. How can it be that, on the one hand, we give to the councils to mitigate the costs of local government reform, yet, on the other hand, take away from them by not giving to those councils in areas of disadvantage all the rates support that they might otherwise have been entitled to?”
“How is it, Minister, meant to deal with what we discovered in Derry — I see that there are not that many Members from Derry in the House — a couple of years ago, when £50 million was taken by organised crime from an illegal waste dump two miles from Derry? Yet nobody — not planning, the Department of the Environment, the police, the Organised Crime Task Force or the Serious Organised Crime Agency — knew about it. Nobody knew about the biggest illegal waste dump ever found in these islands. The environmental crime unit is now tasked with going after those who are responsible for that immense and horrendous crime, whoever they are, and I have certain views on who they are.”
“That was a motion that the Minister proposed in the House some time ago. The consequence of the Budget and the Vote on Account is to undermine heritage-led development. I ask the Minister to advise us how he reconciles the present situation with what he said when he, rightly, proposed that motion and recently allocated moneys under monitoring rounds to DOE for that purpose. <BR /> <BR />Secondly, the DOE's environmental crime unit has around 30 staff. Nobody disputes that, while it has been enhanced since before I was Minister, it still needs more resources. How will the environmental crime unit deal with the huge threat of environmental crime, given that it is a lead policing agency, in effect, on environmental crime?”
“That is the character and content of the Department of the Environment. I have to say to the Minister that the consequence of the Vote on Account is to, in multiple ways, run the severe risk of undermining all of that. <BR /> <BR />Let me give you some examples. The Minister, when he was a Back-Bencher, tabled a motion in the Chamber about heritage-led developments. So, here we are, 'Waiting for Godot', waiting for corporation tax perhaps to be amended and for the jobs that may be created on the far side of that. Meanwhile, report after report in other jurisdictions, including ours, shows that the potential for heritage-led development in Northern Ireland is immense. If it were to go anywhere near creating the number of jobs that it has in Dublin or Scotland, we would create many, many thousands of jobs.”
“However, now is the time to speak about issues that impact on the Ministry that I once held, the first of which is that people should read the Vote on Account and they read the headline purpose of the Department of the Environment:”
“There was no proposal to take the money from anywhere. There was a proposal — unlike that of Mr Allister, who tries to create a reduction in the Budget line — whereby we sought to increase the Budget line by £1 million, which I believe is within the Minister of Finance's competence to recommend to the House. However, that matter is now past because the amendment was not accepted by the Speaker. <BR /> <BR />My second point is this: I have chosen not to speak on environment issues to any great degree in the House since leaving my position as Environment Minister, because there is a new Minister. The new Minister has to find his feet and show his authority, both of which he has done over the last 18 months.”
“Given that we have 40 days and nights until purdah or the spirit of purdah may kick in and that a paper on the matter is meant to go to the Executive this week, how does the Minister see that matter being resolved? It is a matter of resolving it now, given the ambition of last week's motion, the short time frame that we may be working within and the fact that the worst outcome would be for no decision to be taken before the spirit of purdah kicks in so that the two colleges had to face the music at the beginning of the next financial year. I ask the Minister to deal with that.”
“Mr Allister, like ourselves, was trying to do something innovative in the Assembly by amending the motion. Our amendment, unlike yours, Mr Allister, was not accepted, although it seems to me that the broad principles were the same. I accept the ruling of the Speaker in that regard. <BR /> <BR />As I indicated to the Minister of Education earlier, whilst purdah, which will kick in on perhaps 20 March, may not be applicable to the Assembly per se, the spirit of purdah may be applicable to the Assembly in that it should inform Ministers in the Executive about decisions that they might take that might otherwise have an impact on the forthcoming Westminster election.”
“I will hurry up, but I will take 10 minutes. <BR /> <BR />There are four matters that I want to bring the Minister's attention to and ask him to deal with either in his response or subsequently. The Minister is aware that the SDLP tabled an amendment to adjust the top line Vote on Account by £1 million, which is in or around 45% of the premia that would otherwise go to Stranmillis University College and St Mary's University College, to take forward the intention and ambition of the Assembly, which it showed last week when it passed with an overwhelming number — and would have done even on a cross-community basis, even though it was not subject to that threshold — an amendment to put money into the Budget this week to rectify the issue of the premia at St Mary's.”
“I apologise to the House that I have not been in attendance for much of the debate. As the Minister will appreciate, it was my children's parental consultation this afternoon, so I am just back from their school. I will take an intervention on that matter if the Minister is minded to ask me any questions. If not, I will move on.”
“Minister, given that you said that it would be a huge mistake to close our teacher training colleges, given that we are in a critical stage in respect of Stranmillis and St Mary's, and given that there may be as little as 40 days and nights between now and purdah in the middle of March, will you indicate whether you believe that this issue, given last week's view of the premia for St Mary's and Stranmillis, will be resolved, because, if it is not resolved by 20 March, the finances of those two colleges will be in jeopardy?”
“— including those who are off limits and those who are not off limits?”
“Are there issues that even I would have tried to negotiate further on? Yes. However, given the threat of organised crime on this island, given the thresholds of accountability that have now been secured, and given that our people are under the cosh when it comes to environmental crime operations up in Derry and illegal fuel smuggling in the south Armagh area, can anybody deny that it is time for all of us to stand in solidarity with those who face down all the criminals, wherever they might be —”
“It seems to me that, in these circumstances, Sinn Féin should look at its own history. <BR /> <BR />People were ahead of the parties when it came to the new beginning for policing, and it is my belief that people are again ahead of the parties on a whole lot of aspects of public policy in Northern Ireland, including when it comes to standing against organised crime on this island. I ask Sinn Féin, as it processes this, to consider making a call earlier rather than later, rather than what happened on policing, when the call was later rather than sooner.”
“<BR /> <BR />I put on record that not just my colleagues but other individuals in government and agencies applied themselves to the task of that most intense negotiation, especially since the summer of last year, in order that what had been secured 15 years ago with Patten, the Policing Board, the ombudsman and all the rest of it should not be prejudiced and put in jeopardy. <BR /> <BR />I do not agree with what the DUP has done in challenging Sinn Féin in some speeches today. Sinn Féin was largely absent from the negotiation, but it has been fulsome in its recognition of the outcome. From our conversations with Sinn Féin over the past number of days, I do not think that there is any dispute in its Members' minds — it is for them to speak — about the measure of what has been achieved.”
“Thank you. <BR /> <BR />Yes, and that includes a veto over the recruitment of agents or the use of other intelligence weapons and mechanisms. More than that, the Police Ombudsman now has the full menu of powers necessary to ensure that he can take complaints in the devolved and non-devolved sectors about NCA conduct or activity. Therefore, as best we can, and far more than some would have suggested, we have recreated the powers of the Policing Board over the NCA and the primacy of the Chief Constable when it comes to the operational life of the NCA. That is no mean success in the past number of months.”
“It will mean that the Home Secretary no longer has a veto over those precious powers of the Policing Board when it comes to reports and inquiries.”