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 3 of 32.
“I think that you have just been taken off Peter Robinson's Christmas list.”
“We should not go down the road the DUP is encouraging Sinn Féin to go down, as it would see a degradation of fundamental issues in Northern Ireland society.”
“That is where we should concentrate our efforts.”
“I will conclude, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, and go back to the issues. I judge from the intervention that Sinn Féin is not inclined to support an amendment that is more rounded, grounds a review in fundamental values and requirements, talks about the need for independence in decision-making on certain matters, tries to protect the areas that need the most protection, looks to the strengths of arm's-length bodies rather than their deficits and talks about:”
“— you spent a lot of time going down that particular road —”
“Because we are better than a British Government at shaping the destiny of this part of Ireland and the needs of our people. Are you now saying to Sinn Féin that you did not want the devolution of justice and policing? I remember that, in 2007 and 2010 —”
“I will give way in a second. <BR /> <BR />— through all the criminal justice and other agencies in the North, let us be jealous in guarding them. They are fundamental features of the new order of politics, uncertain and turbulent though it may be, in Northern Ireland. I will give way.”
“Consequently, through the Good Friday Agreement and other interventions, we created an architecture to ensure that issues of law, order and justice did not again become the engine for conflict in our society. When we come to the Equality Commission, the Human Rights Commission, our policing arrangements, our criminal justice arrangements and our oversight arrangements —”
“I will deal with my amendment in my closing remarks. I want to deal first, though, with what should be off limits in the DUP intentions to prey on fundamental requirements of our society. There is a wide range of arm's-length bodies that, in the view of the SDLP, should be off limits in any fundamental revision of their function or future. Somebody once wrote that, once national conflicts are fully evolved, they revolve around issues of law, order and justice. Our society demonstrates that, when our national conflict entered its most recent phase — I reject the use of violence to bring about a resolution to that national conflict — it revolved around issues of law, order and justice.”
“It should be vigilant and warned about those who use soft words tonight about an arm's-length review when we know that part of its intention is to damage fundamental values and architecture in Northern Ireland. I will give way.”
“and cost. That is it. Number, function and cost. Do not rely upon the British Government — I barely rely on them on this — but even they publish guidelines on reviews of arm's-length bodies. They talk about it a lot more than even the DUP talks about it, because the British Government talk about whether the bodies are still needed, still deliver, carry out their activities effectively and contribute to policy development. I go a lot further than the British Government, but it is revealing that the DUP does not go even as far as the Cabinet Office advice from the British Government; the DUP concentrates just on numbers, money and function. <BR /> <BR />I will say this to Sinn Féin, because I presume it may or may not be inclined to support the DUP motion —”
“Yes. I see that the Programme for Government is silent on that, despite the urgings of the SDLP in our very substantial Programme for Government submission, which we will publish in the near future. It will provide a very useful checklist against the inadequacies of the Programme for Government produced by the DUP and Sinn Féin. <BR /> <BR />What does the motion from the DUP say? Is says we are going:”
“All right. That might be a relief to some people, but obviously not to the Principal Deputy Speaker, who is very anxious to hear all my words. I welcome that. <BR /> <BR />Let us conduct a fundamental review, as we did in the Housing Executive, when, in an effort to ensure that it was fit for purpose for the next 40 years, we protected its legacy against those who wanted to degrade it. <BR /> <BR />What is revealing in the motion —”
“At the moment, the number of men is twice the number of women, and the number of men who are chairs of arm's-length bodies is four times higher than the number of women. If we are going to do a review, let us deal with the gender imbalance across arm's-length bodies, especially at senior positions. <BR /> <BR />If we are going to review, let us be radical about it. When I was Minister, rather than conducting a light-touch review of the Housing Executive, I initiated a fundamental review in order to protect the legacy of its great achievements over the last 40 and more years —”
“We agree that there should be a review of arm's-length bodies, but, in conducting that review, let us look more laterally rather than looking in the one-dimensional way of the DUP. I will come back to that in respect of the content of the motion. Let us bring into the heart of government the specialists in outside agencies who know best about how to mainstream into the life of government and the life of the North proposals and requirements in respect of equality, human rights, childcare, anti-poverty and older people. If you bring the people who have those specialisms into the life of government, government might live up to the ambition and needs of society. Let us do that. <BR /> <BR />When we are dealing with the issue of arm's-length bodies, what will we do about the gender imbalance in those bodies?”
“For Mr Logan then to accept the scripted point from his colleague, without trying in any shape or form to recognise the different environment, culture and history in Northern Ireland when it comes to equality issues, and to subscribe casually, in that shallow way, to the analysis put forward by Mr Lyons of merging the Equality Commission and Human Rights Commission, as happened in England — something that many people rejected and the consequence of which is that many people feel that both the equality and human rights functions of that new body have been degraded — really did reveal much of the true thinking behind the DUP motion. <BR /> <BR />The SDLP supports reform. There are too many places in Northern Ireland society where people still cling to the past and the old ways of doing things.”
“— the intent of the motion is to do undue damage to ALBs. I will give way in a second. ALBs need review, but the motion would do them undue damage. <BR /> <BR />The proof of that is that there was only one intervention during Mr Logan's speech. What was the intervention? It was to reply to comments being made by Mr Logan. Why was the intervention made by Mr Lyons, other than to launch an assault upon the Equality Commission? In that moment and in that space, did the DUP not reveal the true intention behind its motion, despite the worthy efforts of Mr Logan to disguise it?”
“I will make one preliminary comment on the speech that we have just heard. On reading the motion, it is quite clear what the DUP was at: taking a battering ram to arm's-length bodies in Northern Ireland. What we heard from the proposer of the motion, Mr Logan, who was very measured and moderate in his tone, was him trying to reconfigure the motion to disguise its real intentions. Let us remember, as we go through the debate, that whatever is said by the DUP in proposing the motion —”
“Minister, do you not accept that what you have done today has run a coach and horses through local government reorganisation and the legislation of the House, as the deal with local councils has been openly and callously breached by you, by your statement to the House today?”
“I want to make it very clear that we, on these Benches, unlike some others nearby, take with a big pinch of salt the DUP's commitment to neighbourhood renewal and the principles that have underpinned that strategy for many a long year; a huge, big pinch of salt. We will be watching you, Minister, very closely. Laugh as you do, but there are a lot of people who will not have smiles on their faces today. <BR /> <BR />Does the Minister not accept that the very essence of the transfer of powers to local councils was that, if they took planning and development powers, the resources and the ability to do more than just make plans would follow in due course?”
“Larger councils need larger powers; that is part of the deal for the reorganisation of local government. Will the Minister agree that, if development powers are not transferred, we have the Government pulling in two directions: you trying to help the high street, and another Minister, it might be, trying to impede the development of the high street?”
“I remind the Minister that on 8 November he said:”
“There are many good things in this statement: the use of pilots; the proposal in respect of energy efficient new homes; the tourism and hospitality interventions; and other things. <BR /> <BR />Does the Minister not have two concerns? The first is that if a decision is made in the near future that regeneration powers are not to be transferred to councils, then the rug would be pulled from under his feet with regard to his high street interventions, of which there are a number. <BR /> <BR />Secondly, does he have a concern that the DUP flagged up clearly this morning that when it comes to some, at least, of what he is proposing, he does not have political cover from them?”
“Will the deputy First Minister and the First Minister lodge a statement in the Library outlining what all the principles might be that would inform the discussions and confirming that the principles will include no loss of funding to the Northern Ireland finances, guarantees on the four freedoms, access to further EU funding and no diminution of any of the standards that we have benefited from because of EU membership and membership of the wider European project, including those relating to environment, labour and human rights?”
“The deputy First Minister, in reply to a question, referred to a common position to put to the British Government. In the statement, he also referred to being guided by some common principles. Usefully, he has put some on the record today in reply to Mr McGuigan's question — namely, business competitiveness, energy, common travel and access to labour.”
“Why not say today that that will be part of the social strategy? Say it: yes or no.”
“There is one issue that I struggle with. Given that you seem to accept objective need and Justice Treacy's ruling in July last year, why have you and the DUP — this question is also to Sinn Féin — not accepted what the judge explicitly said? He said:”
“Further to the point of order that I made, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, are you saying to the House that you are not going to consult with the Speaker on the proper interpretation of Standing Orders?”
“On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Given the statement made by the Speaker to the House this morning, I ask you to consult with the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers about the ruling you made in response to the point of order raised by Naomi Long. This is a matter of accountability to the Assembly under Standing Orders, and it is a matter you should discuss with the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers — something that has not happened in the past.”
“Last week, during a long meeting, the Justice Committee looked at a report into one of the tragic incidents in the prison. It was confirmed that — Mr Frew indicated this — it took eight days between a prisoner being prescribed an increase in medication and that being actioned. Given that there is meant to be joined-up work between the health side and the prison side, were the systems that are currently in place today to be stress-tested is the Minister confident that those sorts of incidents would not arise again? Will she give a guarantee that, in taking forward the community response plan, she will involve in that work people from the independent third-sector voluntary and community organisations that deal with self-harm and suicide at the front line and not just involve those who represent public bodies?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In your statement, you said that there are occasions related to constituency or other interests where there would not be an issue that would be problematic in making a ruling, and you then referred in that regard to perceived conflicts of interest. I suggest that you consider that, where there are issues that might be problematic, and indeed where there may be perceived conflict of interest, it might be a better course of action for you as Speaker to take the advice of the Principal Deputy Speaker and the Deputy Speakers in order to ensure that there is a full hearing among you and your colleagues in relation to rulings that might be made when it comes to issues that might present as perceived conflicts of interest and where there are indeed issues that are problematic.”
“It is also because this Minister has taken the opportunity to recognise that those who speak from Opposition Benches do not speak simply to oppose but to propose and create. That is the measure of this Minister, and I want to acknowledge that.”
“I am saying that in the context of the challenges of organised crime, paramilitarism and the health service. Of all the issues that touch on the lives of our people and the life of the Assembly, the most important challenge is a paradigm shift that sees the directing of resources and strategy into the lives of children from the moment of birth — indeed, from before being born — to the age of six. The Programme for Government, and government itself, should be measured against that standard. <BR /> <BR />The reason why this debate has been different in tone and character from others that we have had over the last number of months is the nature of the issue and the consensus of response in the Assembly.”
“That is why we welcome the Minister's comments and those of other parties that they will endorse it. <BR /> <BR />My view — I have said this before, I think — is that the SDLP's first motion of this mandate was on childcare. The reason why the SDLP tabled that motion is that the paradigm shift of this mandate — we had that conversation with the Minister just last week — has to be to recognise that, for all the multiple interventions in the lives of children and in areas of need, it is the concentration of intervention from birth to age six that is the most critical, acute challenge that, in my view, faces the Assembly.”
“<BR /> <BR />I take the point raised by Mr Lyttle that the requirements for nurture are not exclusive to areas of disadvantage. It is more concentrated in such areas for reasons that are captured in many reports, but it is not exclusive to them because there will be children in less disadvantaged areas who will have the struggles and the challenges of those in disadvantaged areas. In that spirit, I will explain the SDLP amendment. The reason why we proposed the amendment is that we should borrow from the Queen's University review of nurture and take forward explicitly its key recommendations: sustainable funding; expansion in each primary-school sector; developing appropriate training for staff; and conducting research into models of delivery. We think that that is a comprehensive approach.”
“That is not least in the context of what was said to me by the principal of a school on the lower Falls, who told me a short time ago that the number of children at preschool and primary 1 who presented with challenges and multiple issues was greater than at any time in her working life. Therefore, the requirements of nurture and the care requirements of our young people from birth to six years, in particular, are more critical and acute than they have ever been. <BR /> <BR />In the spirit of the debate, the SDLP will support the Green amendment, if it is pressed, because we think that there is a need for a comprehensive approach. If that amendment is defeated, we call on all Members and parties to support the SDLP's amendment. That is the tone and tenor of the debate.”
“It is often the case that the simplest stories convey the most graphic truths. Some years ago, I went to see staff in a school in west Belfast. I went into a nurture class, and the school principal told me that the child to whom I was talking came to school not knowing how to handle a pen or pencil. Earlier in the debate, a Member gave the example of a child in a nurture class having to learn how to eat breakfast. Those stories are multiple, and all Members could tell them. They capture the essence of the challenge on the one hand and the value of nurture classes on the other.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way and note what the leader of the Alliance Party has said. The British Open is going to be the game changer of all game changers for tourism and sports tourism in Northern Ireland. Given that we are within touching distance of 2019 for marketing and promotion, will you have a bespoke budget line for the British Open 2019 to deal with infrastructure, marketing, promotion, training, skills and anything else that will make that event as big as possible given its scale? Is there going to be a bespoke strategy, bespoke money, bespoke efforts and bespoke ambitions because that is the measure of whether you are putting meat on the bones of a tourism strategy?”
“Given that your Department leads in the conversation with the NIO about the HIU, can you confirm to the House that you have seen the draft legislation? Are you or are you not making representations to London to ensure that all collusion cases can be investigated by the HIU, rather than what was in the draft last year, when fewer rather than more cases were to be investigated by the HIU? Are you personally making that representation?”
“Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, which was well made, we have a situation in which Ministers do not attend debates in the Chamber and do not make statements to the House on critical matters and when issues have been raised about questions for oral answer being put to Ministers on the Floor. In those circumstances — this is why I welcome the meetings that you will have with party leaders — is there not a strategic issue with the Assembly's ability to fulfil its legal and statutory functions and a danger that it is being prejudiced and damaged? That needs fundamental consideration by you and the House.”
“Are you saying that the deputy First Minister has not had conversations with the First Minister and the Minister of Justice about bringing a paper to the Executive in order to make that request to London? Is that what you are telling us? If so, there might be some validity in what you say, but it is the understanding of everybody that there have been conversations to try to get something through the Executive. In the absence of that happening, it should go through London.”
“I thank the Minister and appreciate the change from yesterday in her approach to taking interventions. When it comes to the release of moneys for legacy inquests, which the Lord Chief Justice said that he needed as "a matter of urgency", where is the impediment at an Executive level? If there is an impediment that you have no time frame for resolution, have you told the Secretary of State that it is your view, individually, that he should get on and fund now?”
“— they will not believe the process is wholesome and worthwhile. Let that also be dealt with if the Secretary of State ever gets around to making the right call on the issue.”
“Otherwise, we are just selling something to people that they will see through on day one, and their hurt will be compounded. <BR /> <BR />The third issue — this is a reflection on the families — is that, if we do not support the families through all the legacy mechanisms — the history archive, the HIU, the ICIR, the IRG and the inquests — with money, advice, assistance and representation —”
“The experience with inquests has been the resistance of the state to providing the information in good time and in full so that it can then be shared as fully as possible with other people. That is the experience of inquests. The Lord Chief Justice was trying to navigate through that in a way that got it to a better place. If, on the far side of this, that is the approach of state authorities to disclosure or the approach of those who were in command and control of any organisation, state — the Government or their agencies —or paramilitary, during the years of conflict about their role and orders on anything that happened around murder and atrocity in Northern Ireland, we will let down victims and survivors again. If inquests are dealt with, let the issue of disclosure be dealt with.”
“If, on the far side of this, the Lord Chief Justice says, "I'm not getting the multiple millions of pounds to do my work", the Chief Constable is not getting the money to do Stakeknife and the rest of us are not getting the money to do all the legacy proposals, we will let down victims and survivors even more than we have in the past. If the Secretary of State recognises his error and the fundamental offence he is causing in not dealing with inquests now, when he deals with it, if he ever deals with it — if he ever stands up to the DUP veto — he must deal with the money. <BR /> <BR />The second relevant issue on inquests was spoken about at length by Mr Kearney. Inquests are about much more than disclosure, and legacy is about much more than disclosure, important and central though it is.”
“He has indicated that he needs multiple millions of pounds, and, since the British Government said they would give money for legacy not only has that request come in but the Stakeknife moneys request came in, which is £35 million for up to seven years, and so on and so forth. The British Government, in dealing with inquests, also need to deal with money for not just inquests but everything to do with legacy. The budget required to deal with that has escalated over the last number of years beyond what it was in even Stormont House.”
“The issue of inquests, of course, is a touchstone of three other fundamental issues on dealing with legacy. The first is that the Lord Chief Justice has made it clear that he needs multiple millions of pounds to take forward his legacy work. Mr Beattie has left the Chamber, but the High Court, through Lord Justice Kerr, called in barristers and solicitors representing families and the state and interrogated them on what was happening on inquests. The Lord Chief Justice is not making this up as he goes along. He had formal hearings through Lord Justice Kerr, and he then had separate meetings with the families to outline what his programme of work might be.”
“The SDLP met the Secretary of State about the matter, and we told him bluntly, "If you give a veto to a party in Northern Ireland on this, you give a veto to other parties on other matters". We know from history that you do not go down that road.”
“If that is what you do in respect of funding inquests in Northern Ireland now, what are you planning when it comes to what might be an imminent public phase of the consultation on legacy proposals? Will you again have a consultation on legacy proposals that denies families, denies the rule of law and denies international standards? That is the message that you are sending out by refusing to take up the challenge of the Lord Chief Justice and the failure of the DUP to respond to the request to release moneys to the inquests.”