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 4 of 32.
“When he made it very clear that he was not listening to them, they made it very clear that they were not going to listen to him any longer, and we all walked out. He meets and then does not listen, and he does not live up to his responsibilities under international law and as the representative of the British Government to release moneys in relation to this matter. He should hang his head in shame that, on the one hand, he invites victims to meet him and, on the other hand, does not heed what they request. <BR /> <BR />We say to the British Secretary of State: do not deny the families, do not deny the Lord Chief Justice and do not deny international requirements.”
“However, I do not think that we will convince the DUP to change its mind, because I am sure that the Justice Minister and Sinn Féin have tried mightily to do so. In the absence of one Government, because of the DUP veto, failing to live up to the requirements set by the Lord Chief Justice, it falls to the London Government to live up to those requirements. That is what the Lord Chief Justice said in his statement earlier this year when he called on the London Government to fulfil their responsibilities as a matter of urgency. <BR /> <BR />The fact is that the British Government have not done so, and the fact is that the Secretary of State meets victims and survivors and then denies them. I want to acknowledge that Mr Beattie was at the meeting when the Ballymurphy families met the Secretary of State.”
“Those were his words, not mine. By relying on his judgement and all that he said about managing the issue, that should be a matter that should be supported rather than rejected. I ask Sinn Féin to consider that matter between now and the end of the debate. <BR /> <BR />What is this debate about? It is about two Governments refusing to live up to the requirements of the rule of law, the need for truth and international standards. The failure in the Executive here is with the DUP. It is the DUP, Mr Beattie, that is blocking this matter processing through the Executive. It is not Sinn Féin or the Justice Minister; it is the DUP. That is a failure to listen to the directions of the Lord Chief Justice and to live up to the rule of law and international standards.”
“If there are any people and families in Northern Ireland who give expression to that wisdom, it is the families who have been campaigning for inquests, truth and accountability, and who have been relentless in so doing. I hope that, wherever we divide on this, we always remember that. <BR /> <BR />We will not be supporting the Ulster Unionist amendment because it removes the critical point, which is that this matter now falls to the British Government to resolve and they should resolve it now. However, I must ask Sinn Féin and Gerry Kelly in particular to reconsider not supporting our amendment. Our amendment contains the words of the Lord Chief Justice. They are not my words or the SDLP's words; they are the words of the Lord Chief Justice. Earlier this year, on the subject of the release of moneys, he said:”
“I start where we should start and end: with the victims and survivors who, over many years, have campaigned and are now within touching distance, on one level, of having a proper inquest into incidents in the past. When I meet any families who are dealing with their pain or are heading towards an inquest, be that the Shankill families, the Ballymurphy families or those of members of our party who were victims of killings in the murder triangle in previous years, I always remember the words of an ancient Greek, who said:”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. I hope that the good engagement with councils will now translate into good representations to communities. At the same time, does he agree that city deals are another mechanism whereby councils in the North, on a regional or city basis, can access funds in order to regenerate their cities? In that regard, is there a change of heart in the Department given what appeared to be resistance, certainly at an official level, in the previous mandate to city deals for Northern Ireland?”
“It refers to "ambitious" programmes for "communities in transition". Are we about to see social investment fund 2? Are we about to see more funding for the likes of Charter NI?”
“The point is that, since then, when it comes to the issues of scale and speed, the NCA has not got one penny extra to deal with organised crime. The Minister will say that it is being dealt with now. It should have been dealt with last October; then it should have been dealt with last May; certainly it should have been dealt with before now. <BR /> <BR />Let me put down a marker: there is error and damage in some of the panel's report, which we have accepted —”
“I will not give way because I have too much to say. <BR /> <BR />The scale and speed must be the defining features of what is happening. Let me give you some examples in that regard. The NCA, in October of last year, made a bid for moneys. It was then told by the British Government that it was illustrative and had to withdraw the bid. Here we are, 11 months later, and the NCA has still not got a penny for the work that it is responsible for and is undertaking. <BR /> <BR />Let me deal with the issue raised by the Members opposite. We agreed to the NCA in February 2015 because there were levels of accountability; it could do its work properly subject to oversight by the Policing Board. At that stage, unlike Sinn Féin — strangely, the DUP have nothing to say to Sinn Féin about the NCA — the SDLP voted in favour of full powers for the NCA.”
“and so on and so forth. While she has been valiant in her defence of what has happened, the Minister cannot reconcile the fact that, on one hand, in July, she said that there is a challenging and ambitious programme of work, yet the Minister of Finance, without dissent from the British Government line, says that funding will not be released until the Executive agree a more detailed action plan. That is the issue. The issue, Minister, is scale and speed, and the British Government are saying that there are issues with scale and speed. There are issues with scale and speed because paramilitarism and criminality are continuing to embed in our communities rather than be purged. The next time the Minister and the Executive come here —”
“So, £5 million that could have been available this year is not available this year because there is not a more detailed action plan. The Minister who chairs responsibility for this, although it is an Executive-wide responsibility, cannot run or hide from that fact that the Secretary of State says that money will not be released until the Executive agree a more detailed action plan. I remind the Minister of what she said and what the First Minister and deputy First Minister said on 19 July about the action plan being a:”
“Thank you. <BR /> <BR />I refer to the comments of other Members who are selective and partial in their memory. The difference between the SDLP and the DUP, when it comes to things of the past that we have got wrong, is that we stand up and apologise and acknowledge it. Others continue to pretend that they did not commit any error. <BR /> <BR />I want to deal with the substance of the matter. You cannot escape from what the Minister of Finance said to the Chamber during his statement on October monitoring. He said:”
“It is very revealing about the DUP approach. The Government parties are beginning to feel under pressure. I will give way to the Member.”
“<BR /> <BR />I want to make one comment in passing about what the DUP is at today and yesterday. It is quite clear that the Government parties are beginning to feel the pressure because of multiple reasons and events. Sinn Féin is better at disguising it, but the DUP cannot disguise it at all, and the aggression and interruptions reflect the fact that the DUP is beginning to get it in the neck and is not happy about it. The person who most reveals that is the man who is smiling at the moment, Paul Frew. He is not inclined to be bombastic, yet yesterday and today he has been, in my view.”
“Can I make one point? There is a common approach, whether it is Gerry Kelly, Sammy Douglas, the Minister, Doug Beattie, the SDLP or those who are speaking to a very good Alliance motion, and there should be no doubt or ambiguity to anybody listening to this debate about the commitment to dealing with paramilitarism and organised crime. The two issues are the scale and the speed of the response. As we know from recent events and from many events before, criminality and paramilitarism — two years since the twentieth anniversary of the first ceasefire and two years before the twentieth anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement — are enduring and embedded. It should be about scale and speed, but I am afraid that we do not have the scale and clearly do not have the speed.”
“I cannot express to you, Mr Speaker, the gravity and seriousness of those words and the importance of your ruling on the matter.”
“I ask the Speaker for an urgent ruling, if possible today, on the comments made by Mr Poots, in which he claimed that a member of the SDLP supported the INLA:”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I refer you to the Hansard report of yesterday's legacy debate, during which a DUP Member made explicit reference to an SDLP Member. Following the explicit identification of that SDLP Member, the Member opposite said the following:”
“The House should send to his family and all families affected its sympathy and condolences.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is also important to say to everybody — every citizen, every organisation and every community representative — that any genuine information needs to be brought to the attention of the police. The police said last week that, in respect of the tragic murder of Joe Reilly, they were following active lines of investigation. Given that the police have said that, there is a responsibility on each and every citizen with any genuine information to provide that to the police in order to ensure that those responsible for any and all of the recent terrible activities are identified, arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned for the crimes that they have committed. <BR /> <BR />Last night's incident was another terrible one, and it involved a man who, by all accounts, was very well regarded and well known.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is also important that we take the opportunity to stand in solidarity with the people of West Belfast, who, over many, many years and in recent days, have continued to show resilience and fortitude in the face of people who are involved in activities that are utterly unrepresentative of and against the wishes of the community of West Belfast. Those involved in the purported paramilitary incidents represent nobody but themselves and act solely on behalf of themselves. They are on the backs of the people, and the organisations involved in activities up to and including murder should get off the backs of the people because the people have no time or place for what they do.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is important that this Matter of the Day was accepted, because it is important that the House shows its support for and solidarity with not just one family, arising from last night's terrible incident, but other families who, in recent weeks, have also lost a loved one and are grieving. It is important that the House has the opportunity to send a united statement of support and solidarity to those families and to people in West Belfast who have been witnesses to, close to or affected one way or the other by the recent killings in the constituency and by other incidents there over the last number of weeks, including a purported paramilitary attack last night not far from the scene of the latest killing.”
“Given the report to the Assembly by the Minister of Finance that London will not release in-year moneys to deal with the issue because of the lack of a detailed action plan and that, one year ago this week, the DUP and Sinn Féin had a fanfare of promotion for Fresh Start, do you feel embarrassed today?”
“When it comes to those issues, there is one, perhaps final, chance to get it right. Let us not squander that opportunity; let us stand up unambiguously for the needs of victims and survivors.”
“Similarly, terror organisations may wish to share at an institutional level corporate memory of what the leadership of illegal organisations did during the years of conflict, but they will not cross the line when it comes to damage to their reputations or self-serving needs.”
“<BR /> <BR />In concluding, let us be clear about one of the fundamental fault lines in the legacy discussions: those who did the worst over the years of conflict, and those who know the most about the truth of all of that, have the least intention to account in relation to the legacy mechanisms. There are too many vested interests at the heart of legacy, where the interest of the few will be greater, or is in danger of being greater, than the interests of the many victims and survivors. That is the truth behind the national security issue: that the British Government do not wish to account for that which may be criminal, embarrassing, callous or brutal, that went on with their knowledge during the years of the conflict.”
“Since the Stormont House Agreement, when moneys were agreed in respect of legacy, there are new and inescapable pressures in relation to Stakeknife, legacy inquest, mental health, demand for the Victims and Survivors Service, the volume of cases to go through the HIU, and the potential role of the IRG? Will funding measure up to all those needs? Will disclosure be dealt with once and for all by the British Government, not in a way to protect its self-serving interests but to satisfy the needs of truth, justice and families, victims and survivors? And so on and so forth, in respect of all the legacy matters.”
“In those papers, we outlined how to upgrade the proposed legacy mechanisms and, without being exhaustive — some people, especially on the British side, will say that we are being exhaustive — these are matters that now need to be dealt with. <BR /> <BR />For example, will the Implementation and Reconciliation Group (IRG) be in statute and have full powers to talk to any person or organisation in order to interrogate thematic issues from the past? Will it have access to any and all relevant information in so doing? Will the Historical Investigations Unit (HIU) be able to investigate cases that need to be investigated, rather than have its role and mandate constrained on some spurious basis, not least in collusion cases? Will the issue of funding be dealt with?”
“Thirdly, we must not have what we were close to having last year: a fait accompli, where a smaller number of parties and one Government decide what the outcome is, over the heads of other parties, other Governments and, crucially, victims and survivors. I hope that there is learning in relation to all that and that those errors and fault lines of last year are not repeated. <BR /> <BR />The SDLP has said that, in writing and in person, to the two Governments and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland over the last number of months. On the matters that I am about to raise, we have not received any detailed or satisfactory answers. In Fresh Start, the SDLP submitted seven papers to the three Governments, some of which were shared with others.”
“I wait to hear from the DUP and Sinn Féin in that regard, but, when the British Government produced a second draft legacy Bill, they shared its contents in full or in part with the DUP and Sinn Féin but not with any of the other parties and maybe not even with the Irish Government, who should have joint custody and stewardship in taking this forward. Are we going to have a rerun of last year's NIO/DOJ conversations with a lack of transparency about what is coming forward?”
“First, this time a year ago, time was spent in the negotiations undoing the damage that was done to dealing with the past arising from private conversations between the Northern Ireland Office and the DOJ that produced, at that time, proposals that would do damage to a comprehensive way of dealing with the past. Yet, that is what we have at the moment. There have been private conversations going on for at least the last six months between the NIO and the DOJ for which the Minister of Justice refuses to account in any shape or form, at any level, to the Assembly or the people of Northern Ireland. When she is asked about these matters, she says, "Ask London". <BR /> <BR />The second lesson from a year ago is on the lack of transparency.”
“Consequently, even at this eleventh hour, I ask the two Governments and all the parties to attempt to improve and upgrade the proposals that are forthcoming in respect of dealing with the past so that the architecture of legacy measures up to the needs of the victims and survivors of the legacy of the last 30, 40 and 50 years. <BR /> <BR />I note that once again, even on this issue, we are being denied the opportunity to hear a response from any Minister, including the Minister of Justice. That is to be deeply regretted. The reason I say that is that, if we are going to navigate through the next number of weeks properly, we need to learn from the lessons of a year ago. What are the lessons of a year ago from the aborted negotiations around Fresh Start?”
“On the far side of and through those processes, we need to deal with the issues of intergenerational trauma and experience, advance national reconciliation and healing and ensure that individuals and communities get the full opportunity through those mechanisms to deal with the issues that they face. <BR /> <BR />Let us be clear: the thresholds around truth, justice, accountability and acknowledgement have been degraded from those advanced, for example, by Eames/Bradley. Each time we have entered into conversation with parties in government, we have ended up with a degradation of the strength and quality of the Eames/Bradley proposals of all those years ago.”
“The next few weeks will be vital in how we comprehensively and ethically deal with the issues of the past. <BR /> <BR />If we are going to deal with the issues of the past, we should try to be informed by a number of principles. First, the highest standards of justice, accountability, truth and acknowledgement should prevail. Secondly, victims should be consulted and be involved in and participate in the design of any legacy proposals. Thirdly, through and beyond the legacy mechanisms, whatever they end up being, doors should not be closed to victims, not least because of a lack of proper financial support for those mechanisms.”
“First of all, I confirm that we accept the Sinn Féin amendment, which adds a little to the motion, and oppose the DUP amendment, which changes a lot in the range of the motion. <BR /> <BR />Last week, I was talking to a senior person in one of the Governments who confirmed that they expected that, within the next few weeks, the British Government would enter the "public phase" that the Secretary of State has been referring to, whatever that means. Given that and the centrality and enduring nature of the issue, it is an important time for the Assembly to touch on and have a debate in relation to these matters so that on the far side of the public phase, whatever that might be, the outcomes do not once again let victims and survivors down, cause them exasperation and, most of all, cause them new and higher levels of hurt.”
“Just to interrogate that last point a bit further, is it not curious to criticise the procurement provisions in Northern Ireland — I agree with the criticism — when actually, for the last 10 years, the Finance brief was held by the DUP, which was responsible for CPD? Do not take the prompt from the Minister; answer yourself.”
“If the Member now supports the principle that smaller parties should have the opportunity to contribute, even if they do not take it up, will his party at the next meeting of the Business Committee therefore support a proposal from the SDLP, Alliance and Ulster Unionists to build into the structures of debates more opportunity for smaller parties to participate?”
“Will you explain to the House how you had that position yesterday and a different position today? Will you explain to the House whether you received any legal advice that might have led you to that conclusion? Will you explain to the House how, overnight, you have come to a different decision from yesterday?”
“My question is not about the decision but about how you came to it. This time yesterday, you said in the Chamber:”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. Referring back to your meeting yesterday, did you raise the issue of corporation tax with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury? Given Mr Gauke's previously stated views that this will happen only when his Government agree a reform package with this Government, has the issue of corporation tax devolution, 18 months from now, been put firmly on the back boiler?”
“I welcome the statement and acknowledge that it is challenging work. I think that everybody recognises that the Minister is applying herself to this challenging work and there should be no doubt about that assertion. If it is the case that, in years 2 to 5 of this mandate, there will be increased health budget allocations in the existing structures and double running as the reforms are rolled out, have the Executive agreed this morning, and has the Minister of Finance confirmed to you, that double running will be permitted during this mandate and that, from year 2 to year 5, can you give a broad indication of the increased budget allocation that will be required to facilitate double running?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is on a different matter and refers to the Hansard report of the debate last week on health and cancer services. At the beginning of that debate, the Minister of Health raised a point of order that lasted over a minute and ran to 233 words. During the point of order, the person then in the Speaker's Chair at no time encouraged the Minister to bring her comments to a close. Will you review the conduct of that point of order?”
“Can the Minister give a firm personal commitment here and now to legal aid funding for the family court? The Minister has made issues of abuse and trauma priorities for her. If the funding for the family court is undermined, vulnerable families, parents and children will be put in jeopardy. Will you give that firm personal commitment to funding for the family court?”
“The reason why there should be a moderate tone is that we are talking in the shadow of a murder in the streets of Belfast. That should focus our minds on paramilitarism and on moderating our language when we come to debate the matter.”
“This issue is part of the residue of paramilitarism in our society, and all the issues that arise from that residue need to be addressed. <BR /> <BR />I know the reasons why the Ulster Unionists have brought this forward but, in our view, some of the language being used by them does not best serve the outcome required in this situation. As I said, in our view, what we would have proposed goes beyond where Sinn Féin is. I make all those comments in the context that I think that there should be a moderate tone in this debate.”
“<BR /> <BR />I remind the Minister that this issue has been interrogated by the Irish court system when it comes to the separated regime that exists in Portlaoise to the point where a court decided that a person seeking a separated regime in Portlaoise was not going to be allowed to have that option. There is a need for robust management of the current regime as we move beyond that, if that is the decision, to a different regime. <BR /> <BR />That was the spirit and content of what the SDLP would have proposed. In my view, it would have been a more comprehensive way, even more comprehensive than the words used by Sinn Féin, to navigate our way through this. Navigating a way through this is what we have to do.”
“<BR /> <BR />Thirdly, how is the current system of separation operating with regard to those who seek to enter into a separated regime in the prison, because people of far greater authority than me, who observe and are involved in the management of prisoners, say to me and to others that those who seek to benefit, as they might see it, from the separated regime are rather casually able to do so. There is a lack of rigour in the assessment of a prisoner going into prison as to whether that prisoner should be permitted to go into the separated regime. It is becoming a matter of first choice — an easy option — and that is not the purpose for which the separated regime was established.”
“Therefore, I asked the Minister to meet with the Minister of Justice and Equality in the Republic of Ireland to discuss where they see the issue of separation going, so that we try, as best as possible, to manage this in a coherent and common way as we go forward. <BR /> <BR />Secondly, the motion may have been less acute if the independent review that was endorsed by the Executive in the middle of July had actually commenced by now. I ask the Minister to advise where we are in respect of the independent review because, as indicated to the Justice Committee last week, as of now, a person has not been appointed to conduct that review. Given that it is part and parcel of the three-person panel report, we need to have action, and action quickly, in respect of the review.”
“The SDLP submitted an amendment to the Ulster Unionist motion in an attempt to comprehensively manage this issue across the island and across the multiple issues that we have to manage. When it comes to dealing with issues that have this sort of character, it is best that the Chamber is able to hear all the voices in that regard, so I want to address what we would have been proposing in an effort to navigate through this very difficult issue. <BR /> <BR />First, and I ask the Minister to reply to this in her response, there are two separate regimes on the island of Ireland, and the proposer referred to this. It is the view of the SDLP that if we are going to deal with the issue of separation, and the SDLP believes that it should be addressed, then it needs to be, as best as possible, addressed across the island of Ireland.”
“I thank the Minister for her answer. Could I press her a bit further? I welcome her commitment to the optimum number of cycles. Are there any plans in her Department or in the Programme for Government (PFG) to move, even on a phased basis, to three cycles of full treatment compared with the one cycle of less than full treatment that women in Northern Ireland have at the moment?”