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 29 of 32.
“If people look at the order that was tabled last Thursday, they will see the proof of that negotiation — proof that nobody in the Chamber can find reason to dispute. There is nothing in the legislation that is now proposed, further to the SDLP negotiation, that anybody can dispute. Indeed, it now seems that even the DUP and others accept — I say this gently, because I noted carefully what they said — that the thresholds of accountability now being proposed are beyond what was there two years ago. Consequently, and Mr Craig best made the point, accountability around policing is better than what we had a couple of years ago. <BR /> <BR />Members have outlined what this will mean. It will mean compliance with the PSNI code of ethics.”
“First, I make the point that this is a negotiation that the SDLP should never have had, because these NCA matters, which are now being put into law, were settled in the Patten negotiation, in the Police Acts and in the implementation of Patten's 175 recommendations. When it comes to accountability, oversight and the ombudsman, these matters were settled nearly 15 years ago. Neither the SDLP nor anybody else should have come back to this negotiation, because these matters had been resolved previously. There should not have been any reason for any London Government to roll back, through the front or back door, that which had been achieved in the role of the PSNI, the authority of the Policing Board, the powers of the ombudsman and the new beginning to policing. <BR /> <BR />However, we had to go back and do some of it again.”
“First, is there not now a need to look again at the issue of an interim report? Secondly, independent of that and without prejudice to the inquiry, is there not an urgent need to scope out redress so that, on the far side of this report, if there is work to be done, it can be done more expeditiously? Thirdly, in the context of dealing with the past generally, will there still be no answer for victims of clerical abuse outside the institutions on how their issues will be interrogated?”
“Are we going to say to victims of clerical abuse outside the institutions that we will not deal with that issue in that environment? Will we say to victims of institutional abuse that we are on hold, pending the Hart report, even though there will be a narrative, a lot of attention, media comment and victim and survivor input into the wider issues of how we deal with the past in respect of the actions of the state and terror organisations? We are in an environment in which it is better to show good authority now rather than defer and delay, in the context of all the narrative that will arise for dealing with the past generally. <BR /> <BR />I ask the junior Minister, whatever her response today might be — I can anticipate that — to go back to the Office of the First and deputy First Minister and ask those Ministers three questions.”
“It has been five years since the campaign to deal with institutional abuse became more visible and public. However, it has not concluded on how the issue of victims of clerical abuse outside institutions will be addressed. Whilst the First Minister gave some answers on the Floor in recent weeks, that is another example of when we must create certainty. <BR /> <BR />As the Stormont House Agreement is taken forward, legislation is drafted and tabled where it is needed, victims and survivors see some concrete product from the agreement in addressing the past in a comprehensive way, albeit noting the gaps in detail and policy proposals in the agreement, the narrative of this place and other legislatures, over the next 18 months or two years, will be about how to deal with the past.”
“It is highly likely that Judge Hart will address the issue of financial redress, and I think that we need to anticipate that in one way but, in any case, give certainty to the victims and survivors by having the First Minister and the deputy First Minister now address the issue of financial redress. Without prejudice, look at best models, look at good authority and borrow from the experience of other jurisdictions, including the rest of Ireland, to see what that might be. Otherwise, there will be an unnecessary, prolonged and agonising wait on a financial redress package in response to institutional abuse. It seems to me that that does not stretch OFMDFM very far, but it gives some confidence to victims and survivors. <BR /> <BR />I agree with Mr Nesbitt's comments.”
“It will do no violence to the inquiry process and no violence to the issue generally if we now begin to scope out the issues of financial redress, and, in doing so, have the understanding of Judge Hart, given the terms of his mandate. <BR /> <BR />There was a report in the newspapers — I think at the weekend but certainly in the last number of days — in which it was confirmed that the Catholic Church in Ireland had disposed of 44 properties with a net sale value of €44 million as part of the its contribution to the financial redress arrangements arising from the Ryan report and other reports in the South.”
“If it so transpires that the First Minister and the deputy First Minister do not feel that the matter should be pressed at the moment — I encourage them not to go in that direction — I think that it is necessary for them, with the knowledge of the inquiry and its chair, to scope out financial redress. If there is a further delay in the report going to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, and then a further delay in the Office of the First and deputy First Minister as to what might happen, I think that, in response to the victims and survivors, we now need to show good authority by interrogating the issue of financial redress in real time without prejudice to the outcome of the inquiry process.”
“When the report goes into the Office of the First and deputy First Minister, under the current time frame of January 2017, how long will it take before conclusions are reached and how much longer will the victims and survivors have an agonising wait on the outcome of the HIA inquiry, not just of the report from Judge Hart? <BR /> <BR />Therefore, I ask the junior Minister in those circumstances, mindful of the issues around the Office of the First and deputy First Minister but more mindful of the needs of victims and survivors, to consider whether there is a need for an interim report.”
“I say that because, under the new time frame, it will be January 2017, which is two years from now, before a report goes to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. Thereafter, they will have to assess that report. <BR /> <BR />You could draw conclusions from how things are assessed in the Office of the First and deputy First Minister, including the current impasse in respect of the appointment of members to the Victims' Commission, where two people's names went forward and there was no question about the validity of the process, yet, on the far side of that, the First Minister said that we have to increase the salary band to attract new candidates. That seems to be a strange commentary on the process, and even on those who went into that process.”
“So far, victims and survivors have travelled far at an unfortunately slow pace, but far nonetheless, with the inquiry process. However, they are now saying, to use their words, that there is now an unnecessary, prolonged and agonising wait on the historical institutional abuse inquiry. Given that the needs of victims and survivors should get our primary attention, and if victims and survivors are now saying that about their overall sense of where the process is at, it seems to me to be appropriate, in response to that sense, to adopt a new approach to the overall issue of addressing institutional abuse. That is why it is now necessary, in order to respond properly, to seek further advice on whether an interim report will be available.”
“The first is that, noting the position heretofore in respect of an interim report, it seems to me that the change of circumstances that we are discussing this morning now require further assessment of a request to Justice Hart for an interim report.”
“<BR /> <BR />It seems to me that, rather than adopt a defensive approach to say that the inquiry now has to have a longer time to finish its proceedings and thereafter some further time to report to the First Minister and deputy First Minister and hold that template, if there has been a change of circumstances around the inquiry, has there not been a change in circumstances more generally? Is there not now an obligation on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to stand back and say, "If there has been a change in circumstances, what consequences does that have in respect of other matters?" <BR /> <BR />I think that it is time to reboot this process — to borrow the more popular phrase at this time. What does that mean? It has a number of dimensions.”
“<BR /> <BR />Like the Chair of the Committee speaking in his party capacity, I want to make a number of comments. First of all, and I will put this to the junior Minister, it seems to me that if the circumstances around the inquiry have changed, which they clearly have because Justice Hart has made the request to the Office of the First and deputy First Minister, does it not follow that there has to be an assessment about whether other decisions that have been taken heretofore should also be changed in the new circumstances that have arisen?”
“As with previous Members who spoke, I support the extension as proposed under the paper, for the simple reason that there is an inquiry process in place, and the best advice of the chair of the inquiry is that he needs more time. Remember that it was in 2009 that victims of institutional abuse began to more actively campaign in respect of the experience that they had during all those years. Here we are, five years later, and it seems to me to be reasonable to allow an extension of time for the inquiry, given the amount of effort that has been invested in creating the inquiry and all the monumental efforts, emotional energy and commitment of victims and survivors to having the truth and accountability of their experience stated in a public fashion and then recorded in a public report.”
“— the protection of all its diverse ethos. That is the way through this, and if the Minister applies his mind to that, we will find a way through.”
“<BR /> <BR />I ask the Minister this: when he says that St Mary's should sustain its student numbers through its reserves, is that the principle that he has urged upon other FE and HE institutions in Northern Ireland that are subject to his and DUP/Sinn Féin cuts? Are they also being urged to rely on their reserves? If so, I would like to know how that is working through for the Ulster University, which, I understand — whether rightly or wrongly — has an issue about reserves, given the proposed move to York Street. <BR /> <BR />I say to the Minister, as I said to him on the last day, the three principles of resolution around the issue of St Mary's are: first, the legal autonomy of the college; secondly, its financial autonomy; and, thirdly —”
“Secondly, whatever the ethos of St Mary's, and I welcome the Minister saying that he wants to protect it, part of that ethos is the fact that St Mary's University College is a centre of excellence for the Irish language and for Irish teaching, as well as being an open and inclusive college for all other traditions and viewpoints in this part of the world. When we are meant to be promoting equality and parity of esteem, the proposed cuts will consequently have a disproportionate impact on the Irish language, culture, teaching and sports at the centre of excellence that is St Mary's College.”
“The multiplier effect of cutting staff and students in an area of need and disadvantage is going to be immense. Indeed, it will be compounded by the fact that it is an area of disadvantage.”
“<BR /> <BR />It has been estimated that, if the Government push on with the proposal to make up to 20,000 people redundant as part of the voluntary exit scheme (VES) that might be a consequence of the Stormont House Agreement, the consequence will be a further loss of 20,000 or 40,000 jobs because of the multiplier effect of the loss of public-sector employment. That is why we need to be very vigilant that, if VES is rolled out, it is rolled out on the right basis and subject to the right principles. However, if the Minister's decision and the DUP and Sinn Féin's decision when it comes to the Budget are rolled out, that will have immense consequences for the local economy in west Belfast and for cross-cutting priorities beyond the consequences for St Mary's college and its staff.”
“Nowhere is that more true than in an area of disadvantage on the Falls Road, given the potential impact of reductions of the scale that has been proposed by the Minister, part of which is the result of the Tory Budget that the Executive pushed through a couple of weeks ago but most of which is a result of what the Minister has been proposing. The consequence for growing the local economy on the Falls Road, and for that local community in respect of cross-cutting priorities, will be catastrophic.”
“Sometimes, debates on higher and further education are somehow reduced to the issue of the skills necessary to grow our economy. That is going to become pretty acute in the event that our Government go over the wall in respect of corporation tax and do not do it on the right terms, of which there is a real risk. More immediately, the cuts that the Tories in our Government have imposed on HE and FE provision and Departments here will have an impact on growing the local economy and cross-cutting priorities.”
“I apologise to the House for not being here for all of the debate. Mr Anderson referred to the past. I and other people were down at the High Court in Belfast where the families of the victims of the Glenanne killings, of which there were over 100, had a hearing in respect of a judicial review. So, I apologise for missing much of the debate. <BR /> <BR />It is curious that the motion from the Committee refers to:”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I understand that there has been some consideration by all parties of the premia to St Mary's University College and Stranmillis University College in Sinn Féin's amendment. Will the Member indicate the DUP's intentions when it comes to the amendment in support of the reinstatement of the premia, which would extend to Stranmillis University College?”
“— and autonomy? If he does not, he is with the DUP tonight; he is not with the people of west Belfast.”
“— the end of that college and a concentration at the Stranmillis site. Those are the two options. Will the Minister accept the principles of ethos protection and financial viability —”
“Two scenarios will be deployed over the next number of days and weeks. The first is the right argument, which is to maintain the ethos of St Mary's University College. The fact that it is Irish and Catholic and other needs to be remembered. We need to maintain its autonomy as an institution and its financial independence. If you do not adhere to all three of those principles around this issue, you will have what Queen's or UU want, which is the slow death of St Mary's. When the next financial crisis hits the Budget over the next three or four years, that will be the pretext, especially for some in the leadership in Queen's University, for the further financial run-down of St Mary's —”
“Mr Sheehan said that it was, after all, only a 10·8% cut that the colleges in Northern Ireland were going to have to accept. That is a curious way of explaining a Tory Budget. Putting that aside, if the Minister's view prevails in the short term, you pull the rug from under the viability of that community and the economic family that the Royal, the shops, the pubs, the retail outlets, the Gaeltacht Quarter and St Mary's provide. You will pull the rug from the sustainability and viability of so much of the economic life of a disadvantaged area of the city. The question to the Minister is this: have you conducted an equality impact assessment of the catastrophic proposal that you have made in respect of St Mary's, which is also a policy change in the funding of teacher training? <BR /> <BR />Let me put down a caution.”
“Mr Buchanan referred to narrow sectoral interests. Let me tell him something: this is not about narrow sectoral interests; this is about the sustainability and viability of an economic and wider community of which St Mary's forms part.”
“We all owe Mr Buchanan some thanks because, out of the blue, in the middle of this debate, the cat came flying out of the bag when Mr Buchanan said that the issue now was the short-term sustainability of St Mary's with the long-term goal of putting teacher training on the Stranmillis site. For a long time, people have skirted round the issue, but, tonight, the DUP came out for the first time and said clearly what the agenda was: some short-term sustainability, money for you to go away for a few years whilst we conspire to concentrate all teacher training on the Stranmillis site. So the question is not to the DUP; it is to the Minister for Employment and Learning. Does he dissent from the view of the DUP, which curiously it has suddenly put into the public domain tonight?”
“Will the Member also confirm that, contrary to what the former Minister of Finance said, it was at the insistence of Social Development Ministers that more money went into the warm homes scheme. When Mr Wilson was Finance Minister, it so happened that Margaret Ritchie and I were Ministers, and the green new deal was repeatedly derailed by Mr Wilson and DFP making the argument that the business case somehow did not stack up. Some £175 million that could have gone into the warm homes scheme and the green new deal was denied by that former Minister and DFP.”
“What opportunities does the Minister believe the partnership panel might have for tackling disadvantage in areas of need? Does he agree that, whatever its role, the rug has been pulled from under the panel's feet by last week's decision, through the Tory Budget, to do further damage to rate relief for areas of disadvantage and areas of need? How can the partnership panel now try to mitigate what others have imposed on areas of disadvantage in Northern Ireland?”
“As the junior Minister said, victims and survivors have to be a priority. In that regard, are you in a position to share with the House any fresh thinking that might be developing in relation to the management of inquests, particularly in dealing with the issues of disclosure, the backlog and the resourcing of inquests in order to ensure that victims and survivors who seek out truth are given that opportunity?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I request, Mr Speaker, that you might review the Hansard record, in particular the comments made by Mr Allister in relation to comments made by a third party, not in or a Member of the Chamber, in respect of the attacks in Paris and France over the past number of days. I ask that you review the Hansard report and determine whether those comments were appropriate.”
“Twenty four nationalists, nationalist by their own declaration in the Members' interests in the House, voted down the first nationalist Speaker of the House. When we come to exercise our vote, we will not follow that narrow, selective, partial, limited and backward example. Whilst we support John Dallat, we will not oppose Mr McLaughlin.”
“In the view of our party, those comments made four months ago are as valid today as they were then. On the latter point, it will be curious to see, over the next number of days, whether politics is again reduced to a division of spoils when it comes to the nomination of a Principal Deputy Speaker. I wait to hear the voices across the Chamber in response to that question. <BR /> <BR />On the last occasion, the SDLP voted for Mitchel McLaughlin as Speaker, and Hansard records 14 SDLP votes for Mr McLaughlin and 24 votes from Sinn Féin. However, Hansard then records that, under the label "nationalist", 24 people voted against a nationalist Speaker of the House. Mr Boylan voted no. Mr Kelly voted no. Mr McElduff voted no. Ms Ní Chuilín voted no. Mr O'Dowd voted no.”
“First, the SDLP believes that the three candidates, Mr Beggs, Mr Dallat and Mr McLaughlin, all have the capacity and could all have the confidence of the House when it comes to the role of Speaker. However, I want to repeat two comments that I made about our candidate, Mr Dallat, when this matter came before the House last autumn. The Hansard record confirms that I said:”
“The resources of this part of the world do not recognise the border. The disposal of waste should not recognise the border either in having a responsible, integrated, all-Ireland recycling and waste strategy. Otherwise, we are pretending to people that we are dealing with the threat of waste to this island.”
“So we have Mrs Cameron rightly making an argument about Arc21, when, at the same time, the DUP Finance Minister puts in a Budget line, without reference to the Minister of the Environment, of £50 million. What was that £50 million for? It was to subsidise the capital costs of Arc21 up on the Hightown Road. Will someone explain to me how you can reconcile an argument against Arc21 when a Budget line has been created without the knowledge or consent of the Minister of the Environment? We know who else endorsed that draft Budget, which included an allocation under financial transaction tax of £50 million to an Arc21 project that, in my view, should not be supported. <BR /> <BR />Given this small island, will we recognise that the only coherent, long-term approach to dealing with waste will be through an all-Ireland strategy?”
“Will we endorse statutory recycling targets so that, when it comes to the disposal of waste, we are challenging ourselves in a big way to have big ambition by putting statutory recycling targets in law, on the far side of which there will be more discipline and rigour? I say to Mrs Cameron that my sense, frankly, is that there will be other Ministers in the Executive who would resist a statutory approach because they think that it would somehow tie the hands of the farming or other industries. Will we face up to the challenge that Mr Agnew rightly put to the Assembly or will we not? <BR /> <BR />Mr Kinahan rightly referred to the fact that £50 million was somehow allocated to the DOE in the draft Budget without the DOE knowing anything about it. Who allocated that £50 million? It was the Finance Minister.”
“Given that we cannot go to landfill, we do not want buckets, volumes and mountains of black bin bags lying here, there and everywhere because there is no other way to dispose of them. Noting that point, and given that recycling volumes are increasing and that the strategic gap is reducing, it was a valid point made by Mr Agnew's about interrogating the evidence to see what other remedy there might be for the disposal of that which remains. I hope that the Minister and the Government will continue to do that. <BR /> <BR />In doing so, will we face up to some wider responsibilities? Will the Assembly endorse statutory recycling targets? That is not the big ambition that I tried to articulate when I was in the DOE, which Mr Agnew referred to.”
“I was the Minister who agreed to the north-west planning application for a gasification plant — it was not incineration; it was gasification — because I accepted that, when you interrogate the evidence, you realise that, as waste volumes increase over the next 30 years and even as recycling might speed up, there will still be a strategic gap, which has to be disposed of in the most responsible way. In my view, a gasification plant that had waste coming in, that had that waste recycled, with the residue going into gasification and the bottom ash then being used for further recycling processes, was a valid approach. I stand by that decision. <BR /> <BR />Steven Agnew's point was a valid one.”
“It does not have the roads and other infrastructure. It is not the appropriate environment, given the heritage value of that particular area. For what it is worth, my sense of things is that Arc21 is not an organisation that has the capacity to deliver a viable project. That is my view based on the knowledge that I have gathered over the last three or four years. We will see whether that view prevails in the fullness of time.”
“<BR /> <BR />In all these circumstances, given what has happened in respect of Tamboran over the last few weeks, and given the corporate interests — and I know well about them, because I met them when I was Environment Minister — it is very wise to adopt a highly precautionary approach when it comes to public debate about the matter if you are the Minister, although that does not apply to the rest of us. I urge people to recognise and acknowledge that as the wise course of action. I have no doubt, knowing Mark Durkan, that he would like to be here and be involved in this public debate, but the wise course of action is to adopt a slightly different approach. <BR /> <BR />I endorse all the arguments, and will maybe add to one or two of them. This is not the place for the project. It does not have community and political support.”
“According to one media report a couple of weeks ago, that company, in terms of its fracking ambition, aims to sue the Northern Ireland state for billions of pounds. It was Mrs Cameron's colleague Mrs Foster whom they named in that regard, as I understand it. Having gone after the Enterprise Minister, they now intend to go after the Environment Minister on the very same issue. <BR /> <BR />We should not create any exposure to our Government or to any of our Ministers in respect of planning matters, given that, when it comes to planning applications, like Tamboran and fracking, and like the Arc21 proposal, there are huge international corporate interests and institutions in the background. They are looking for opportunities to trip people up in order to create opportunities to have access to legal remedy.”
“I welcome the debate, and I acknowledge Mrs Cameron's tabling of it. As everybody else has said, I first want to acknowledge the people who are campaigning in Glengormley, Hightown and the adjoining areas, because they are good people. They have good arguments and are running a good campaign. At a public meeting in March or April, which was attended by 200 or 300 people, I said then — and I will say again now — that I think their argument and their campaign will prevail. <BR /> <BR />I agree with Mr Maginness about why Mr Durkan, the Minister, is not here. My advice to him, and to anybody in this situation, is to adopt a very precautionary approach. There is a company in Northern Ireland at the moment that is taking legal proceedings against two Ministers. One happens to be a DUP Minister.”
“Given that Mr Farry has, I suggest, a very clear, if not dogmatic, agenda for teacher training, is this not a place where you, as a Minister, with your responsibilities, should show better authority?”
“The Minister knows what I will say next, and it is that I am surprised by that reply. I am surprised because you cannot divorce the world of education from the world of further education, and you cannot divorce teacher-training provision in our secondary and primary schools from teacher-training provision in our third-level institutions. It is one of the most self-evident examples of the requirement for joined-up thinking —”
“When it comes to the truth of those words, nobody is convinced.”
“just as the political parties, MI5, the army, the police and anybody else with information should tell the truth. However, when it comes to those words in the talks process —”