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 8 of 32.
“In the Fresh Start negotiations, we put in a 14-page document on welfare mitigation — 14 pages — that I shared with the DUP and Sinn Féin. I gave it to Minister Storey, who then shared it with the DUP and Sinn Féin. We have yet to see any document from that time about what the DUP and Sinn Féin were proposing, not just on welfare but on anything.”
“The experience of so many in London, Birmingham and Edinburgh — across Britain — is that, because they have not had a right to independent advice, they have gone into a reformed welfare system with inequality of arms. All the resources and powers are in the hands of DWP and not in the hands of the individual claimant. Would it not have been a stronger position to put all of that into law as an independent right to statutory advice on welfare? <BR /> <BR />When the Minister says that this is the missing element — putting more into welfare mitigation but not saying where it should come from — it is a false argument, because the SDLP put forward reams of proposals in the Chamber through legislation and in negotiations on welfare.”
“It is as if the SDLP had not been making an argument about all of that for the last couple of years. It was not Sinn Féin and the DUP that tabled amendments in the Chamber that tried to put into law some of the things that the Minister has put into practice through today's Budget allocations and further to the Budget for 2016-17. Today, the Minister allocated moneys to the advice sector that will change the Department for Communities baseline in this year's Budget — rightly so. However, would it not have been a position of greater strength to take the advice of the advice sector, which wanted to put into law a right to independent advice on welfare?”
“I welcome those, but I have to say to the Minister that he really is misguided if he holds to the argument, in respect of all that and the budget lines that have now been created, that he made yesterday in the Chamber. Talking about where money should be spent and where to find new money, he said about putting more into welfare mitigation and where it should come from:”
“<BR /> <BR />That was one of the reasons why I asked the question yesterday — the Minister responded to it — about the potential of the Minister being required, under Fresh Start legislation, to come to the House with a statement, at the insistence of the London Government, on any budgetary changes that might arise for whatever reasons. My sense is that bad news is coming and that it is coming independently of what happens on Thursday week in respect of the European budget. <BR /> <BR />The Minister's statement today — it adjusted the overall budget line for the year — made new allocations to welfare mitigation and the giving of advice.”
“If that is a pressure in the school system, which it clearly is, will further pressures now arise in respect of every other head of spend by Departments when it comes to salaries and wages? Are we facing a replay of what has happened in our schools across the life of our public sector and Civil Service in the North? I would like to hear what the Minister has to say today, or, if he is not in a position to answer those questions today, afterwards. We need to create certainty on whether something is coming from London or has come already — we saw it in the Department of Education budget line — that we will see in the hospital budget line, the public-sector budget line and across a whole lot of other budget lines that touch on salaries and wages. Should we anticipate that?”
“<BR /> <BR />If it is the case that the Committee may not be briefed tomorrow about what might have happened today, can the Finance Minister brief the Assembly about the uplift in the Education budget that now impacts on the overall Budget for the year and, in particular, on whether those moneys are going to be allocated to help schools with the in-year pressures that they have around employers' contributions, National Insurance and cost-of-living increases? I ask the question to make a general point. The Minister will be aware that — again, I am subject to correction — the reason why the pressure has, in one argument, come in-year for our schools is that the Treasury is now saying that any adjustments in employers' contributions, National Insurance and cost-of-living increases have to be paid by Departments.”
“I might be corrected on this as well, because I only got wind of it in the corridors, but we picked up this afternoon that the Minister of Education might not be giving a briefing to the Education Committee tomorrow on what June monitoring might mean for our schools budget. The Minister talked about new moneys going to our schools, and that is very welcome, but the definition of what it will be spent on is, as we speak, somewhat unclear.”
“We need to have an answer because there seems to be some tension between money that seems to have come across, subject to what the Minister might say, and the fact that it does not seem to have been spent on childcare. I think that is a fair question in the week that is in it, when the Assembly unanimously passed a motion that stated that, whatever about the how, why and when, it wanted to see more money spent on childcare within the life of this year's Budget. <BR /> <BR />I ask the Minister a second question, arising from the adjusted Budget that we now have for this year. The Budget has been adjusted, as of today, for this year, with the additional provision going to schools.”
“Have the Barnett consequentials come across? I would be a wee bit surprised if they have done in advance of the money being allocated in London, because that scheme does not start until September 2017. However, I would like to know whether they have come across. If they have come across, what was the amount of money? If an amount of money has come across, what is it being spent on, if it is not being spent on childcare? <BR /> <BR />I return to my question to the Minister of Finance. If the Minister of Education comes forward with a proposition in this financial year to increase free childcare provision for three- and four-year-olds to 20 hours a week, will he be able to find that money, just as he has, in a welcome way, been able to find some money for in-year pressures for school budgets?”
“<BR /> <BR />I ask that question because, in the debate last week on the motion on childcare, which was passed unanimously by the House, the Education Minister said that the Barnett consequentials from the London Government's commitment to roll out extra childcare support, starting in September 2017, had come across to the Northern Ireland Budget line. He added, subject to what the Minister of Finance says and what Hansard records, that they had come across in an "unhypothecated" way, which is the practice. The Barnett consequentials do not come across ring-fenced. <BR /> <BR />My question therefore to the Finance Minister is this: have there been Barnett consequentials from the proposed uplift from London as a result of the delivery of increased childcare provision for three- and four-year-olds in England?”
“The one thing that he did not reply to, or certainly not in any detail, was the contention that we put to the Minister that, in this financial year — it therefore very much touches on the Budget that we are discussing — if it were the case that the Minister of Education came forward with a proposition to increase childcare for three- and four-year-olds to 20 hours a week, costing about £15 million according to the Minister of Education, would the Minister of Finance be inclined to support it? I think that those figures are right because we have had them confirmed to us.”
“I will conclude those remarks now, but corporation tax was weaved in and out by Mr Lunn most recently. The Minister is negotiating on something that London have said explicitly in Stormont House that they will not negotiate on, and the DUP and Sinn Féin have both said that they are loyal to Stormont House. Sinn Féin is not loyal to Stormont House when it comes to that issue. Explain that, Minister. <BR /> <BR />I will move on to deal with childcare. I read the Minister's reply to the debate yesterday on the Supply resolution.”
“The Minister said that, as part of his negotiation with the Treasury — I think that he indicated that he wrote to the Treasury in this regard — he wanted second-round effects on other taxes to be part of the negotiation. The London Government have said explicitly in Stormont House, which the DUP and Sinn Féin say that they are loyal to, that second-round effects on other taxes are not part of the negotiation. I hope that the Minister is successful in making that part of the negotiation.”
“It adds — this is the challenge for the Minister because he has, quite rightly, made it an issue of negotiation with the London Government — that the UK Government will look at direct and behavioural effects but:”
“He would not go beyond the wording of the Stormont House Agreement, which was, "You will agree to our reform measures if you want me to commence the power to devolve corporation tax". That is why the DUP is in a false place on that. It is clear that there is an enormous negotiation yet to do. That is why I encourage the Minister in those negotiations in that regard. However, this is where Sinn Féin is both right and wrong: what else does Stormont House say about the devolution of corporation tax? In the paragraph on corporation tax, it says:”
“Do you know what the Minister replied? He said:”
“What is the corroboration of that? Mr Agnew will recall — I have read this into the record on a number of occasions in the Chamber — the exchange between Mark Durkan MP and a senior Treasury official at the Committee that interrogated the legislation on the devolution of corporation tax. It should set alarm bells ringing for those who claim that the deal is done on corporation tax. Mr Durkan said:”
“Did anyone in the Chamber hear me say anything about date and rate? I referred to the reform measures that Stormont House states explicitly have to be agreed with the British Government for them to activate their commencement power in respect of devolution. If you do not understand that, with all due respect to you through the Chair, it is a huge lack of understanding. That is what the DUP and Sinn Féin have loyally been signing up to since the Christmas of Stormont House.”
“My observation on that remark, and everybody will have heard it, is that it was valiant but weak. Valiant but weak because I did not dispute that the date and rate are an issue any longer.”
“I will give way in a second. I am not surprised that the Member is on her feet, because it is much more than date and rate: those who are most loyal and faithful to the Stormont House Agreement have to live with the consequences of those words. The consequences of those words, when it comes to the devolution of corporation tax, is that this Executive, a two-party-rule Executive, have to agree with London the terms beyond the date and rate, including reform measures. I will give way to the Member.”
“So the DUP believes that there is a rate and date and that that has all been signed off, but London does not see it that way, because they say, and no doubt they wrote these words:”
“As is the nature of the DUP and Sinn Féin, they are both right and both wrong. Let me put on record again what I have said in the Chamber, on three different occasions, about where we are in respect of corporation tax. There is a reason why they are both right and both wrong. The DUP is transparently wrong, because it is one of the custodians of the Stormont House Agreement, as is Sinn Féin, and the financial annex to the agreement — this is the point that the Minister might want to address because he is going to be the main man in the room with the Treasury in respect of all of this — states that the legislation, which has now been passed, will also include a commencement clause.”
“I stand corrected. <BR /> <BR />Going back to Mr Agnew's point, he asked why the SDLP is not shifting ground — those were not the words he used — on corporation tax. Hansard will confirm, especially since the Stormont House Agreement, the repeated points of reference and warnings that we have put down in the Chamber. On at least three occasions, it was me who put them down. The reason I make that point is to go back to the Budget debate and the narrative around corporation tax and to ask the Minister a question. <BR /> <BR />Apparently, there has been some dispute between the DUP and Sinn Féin about whether a corporation tax deal has been signed off. The DUP's view is that there is a date and a rate and that therefore the matter is concluded, but the Minister's point is that there is still business to be done.”
“We will be competing for a tiny bit of the EIB pie. If 90% goes to EU members and 10% is spread towards neighbouring and developing countries, you can imagine how much of that money we are going to get. In the very moment when the Ulster University is able to relocate — into a very ugly building, I have to say, and I have had that argument with the Ulster University — rightly, in a strategic move to rebuild the north side of the city of Belfast, where there are enormous opportunities — and I would love to have a conversation with the Minister in that regard — and is able to draw down hundreds of millions of pounds from Europe, and when housing associations are about to draw down hundreds of millions of pounds from Europe, we are saying, "Let us compete for a bit of the pie rather than all of the pie."”
“I think that the Deputy Speaker is going to put me in my place very shortly if I do not move on. I tend to accept all interventions; that has been my practice. I am prepared to accept that one, but I think that I might be ruled out of order.”
“— because that is part of the European project. If we have best practice and good learning in Europe, let us try to help those countries that are struggling as they emerge from whatever situations.”
“I will respond to that very promptly. Of course, that is not what Mr Lunn said. Hansard will have recorded the fact that Mr Lunn acknowledged that money was going to places outside the European Union. He made the point that it was developing countries —”
“I will give way in a second. There are two in one; that is a good start. That was a very powerful —”
“I will start by acknowledging Mr Trevor Lunn. It is many a long day in the House — and you have been here a long time, Mr Kennedy — when a Member takes an intervention, not least from Mr Allister, and the only reply to his response is for Mr Allister to repeat his initial question. In that moment, you got an insight into the debate on Europe. Mr Allister put forward a proposition, and it was Mr Lunn who immediately and comprehensively rebutted that proposition. The only thing that somebody who will be voting to get out of Europe could do was to repeat the proposition that had been rebutted.”
“I apologise to the Minister and the House for being absent without leave during this long debate. I hope not to detain the House too long with my contribution — too long.”
“They have, Minister, been waiting far too long.”
“Will the Minister confirm that, in all the rage against welfare reform and against austerity, you signed up to austerity with the legislative consent motion that was passed in the Chamber last year? So much for raging against austerity. <BR /> <BR />I have two final points. I go back to the point raised by Mr Nesbitt. Is it not time for even a notional budget line to be created to give victims of institutional abuse some sense that now, on the far side of Hart, there will be a redress scheme? If you meet the victims of institutional abuse, they tell you that they are dying as we speak. They deserve some certainty. Give it to them by even a notional budget line for a redress scheme rather than let it hang and hang and hang until the far side of Hart and beyond for many a long year —”
“I have spent many a long hour, maybe too many hours, in the Chamber — Mr Storey is laughing — raging against austerity and also making proposals to deal with austerity on the pensions, Budget and welfare sides. Mr O'Dowd also raged against austerity in his speech, and he was right to do so. Will the Finance Minister now confirm that, when powers on welfare were surrendered last autumn, just before Christmas, to London, the consequence of that was that there will be a freeze on benefits for the next four years and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can unilaterally change the rules on the benefit cap and reduce it without reference to you or to anybody in this Chamber and can make other malign welfare changes?”
“Yet, as the Minister is likely to know, or will know soon enough, a public inquiry will not even be commenced or concluded by the autumn of this year. A recommendation will go to the Minister for Infrastructure some time in the spring or summer of next year, and the earliest possible date of any spend on construction works on the A5 will be the autumn of 2017. That matter was confirmed to us in our conversations with senior civil servants during the abortive PFG negotiations. Can the Minister confirm that the Budget allocation of £13·2 million this year for the A5 is substantially not going to be spent because there is not going to be substantial works completed in respect of the A5 during this year? <BR /> <BR />My fifth question to the Minister concerns the fact that he raged against austerity, and he was right to do so.”
“Can you indicate whether, if that is the case, that is a quick fix for the problem this year or whether it will be an enduring approach over the lifetime of this mandate so that our school principals have certainty in respect of their budgets, not just for this year but for coming years? <BR /> <BR />My fourth question to the Minister is on the A5. As he will know, his predecessor tabled a ministerial statement on 17 December outlining spend on the A5 in each of the financial years up to 2021, the spend for 2016-17 being £13·2 million. The Minister may or may not be aware that the deputy First Minister said that, in respect of that spend, construction work would be commenced by the autumn of this year.”
“If the Minister of Education were to come to the Minister of Finance with a specific proposal in that regard in this year or in coming years, what would his attitude be? I ask that not least because, as the Minister rightly indicated, the roll-out increasing it to 20 hours a week even in this financial year would cost £15 million. That happens to be in and around the suggested figure that you will allocate in a June monitoring round to deal with the in-year pressures on our schools budget. Until the Chair of the Education Committee indicated this, I was not aware that £15 million will be released under June monitoring to deal with the in-year pressures on our school budgets and £5 million for special needs.”
“One of the reasons for that is what? The slowdown in the construction business in Britain. <BR /> <BR />I come to my second question for the Minister. A motion on childcare was passed last week, endorsed by the Minister's own party and not opposed by any other party. The Minister of Education indicated that, although he may have some issues about when and how to roll out childcare, he did not appear to oppose the principle of the roll-out of childcare to 20 hours, and 30 hours thereafter, for three- and four-year-olds.”
“Therefore, my question to the Minister, and this was picked up earlier by the Alliance Party, is this: are you picking up anything that suggests to you that you might have to come before the House, under the legislation passed by the Westminster Parliament earlier this year, with a statement about a revised Budget block grant from London? I ask that not least because of the comments made by Mr Nesbitt on what Ulster Bank says today — not in May but today — about the economic circumstances for the next quarter; namely:”
“I, too, congratulate the Minister on his appointment and wish him well during his tenure. <BR /> <BR />I want to ask him a number of questions. I ask the Minister to look, sometime or other, at section 9 of the Northern Ireland (Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan) Act 2016, which refers to draft Budgets and the obligation that falls on him to table, in a financial year, a motion on the UK funding allocated for that year. That might be in the future, but my question is in the short term. <BR /> <BR />Section 9(2) refers to the fact that you would be required, if the Secretary of State so directs, to lay a statement if the amount of the block grant had been revised in-year.”
“While acknowledging the independence of the Hart inquiry, given that Judge Hart has said that he will recommend a compensation or redress scheme for victims and survivors, which many of them have demanded, is it not time for the Executive Office to, as a minimum, scope out what a redress scheme should look like, in advance of, and complementary to, the forthcoming recommendations of the Hart inquiry?”
“To be fair to the Minister, there are very few Ministers in this part of the world who have had ministerial portfolios in Health, Finance and Economy. Will this tourism strategy be a reheated version of what was not published before, or will it be something that measures up to the needs of this debate?”
“<BR /> <BR />I agree also with Mr Dickson's comment about licensing. We have to get a grip on it. We have to recognise that the businesses — the pubs, the clubs and the hotels, wherever they may be, including in East Antrim — are begging for the issue to be decisively dealt with. I sat in government and saw the interests of sectors that were not economic prevail over the interests of sectors that were economic and which created jobs. I ask the Minister to show his authority in that. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the fact that it now appears that we will get a tourism strategy. I look forward to what it might be, although I worry that if it has been sitting around for a long time, will it be published in a reheated version or in the expansive version that it needs to be?”
“When I was Minister of the Environment, I made a somewhat controversial decision that was challenged by the National Trust, which failed in its legal challenge, on the proposed golf course up at the Causeway. The thinking behind that decision was not the golf course, however. The thinking behind it was the lack of infrastructure and not having a five- and a six-star hotel. Mr Dickson is right: visitors come from Dublin, race up to the Giant's Causeway and leave again because there is nowhere to say. If we do not build hotels outside greater Belfast — greater Belfast is clearly developing successfully; it is the other areas that are not, and those include East Antrim and the glens — you will not have visitors coming and an increase in visitor spend. You will not have that unless you grow the infrastructure.”
“The Wild Atlantic Way and the Ancient East are Fáilte Ireland not Tourism Ireland, but I will come back to the point that the Member makes. <BR /> <BR />If we are to maximise the opportunity, we have to embrace the branding and marketing opportunities, and those include the Wild Atlantic Way and the Ancient East. We are cutting off our nose to spite our face. <BR /> <BR />The question to the Minister is this: will he be the Minister who makes the paradigm shift, who looks at the marketing opportunities on this island, be they in tourism or in many other aspects of his brief, and says that, if we do not punch and market and gather together, we all lose together? <BR /> <BR />Mr Dickson touched on a point about infrastructure.”
“Similarly, for the north coast, when it comes to the Wild Atlantic Way, the glens of Antrim are not part of that experience.”
“However, if east Antrim, south Down, the north coast or Derry are to measure up to the potential that it offers for visitor numbers and visitor spend, there are a number of issues that the Minister and his Department will have to grapple with. I would like to name some of those, as I think that they all impact East Antrim. Mr McMullan rightly referred to the latest interventions from Fáilte Ireland for its tourist product — namely, the Wild Atlantic Way and the Ancient East — but said that they stop at the border. Here we are in Northern Ireland with the jewel in the crown of Christian heritage on this island and, arguably, in the world, save for the Holy Land — namely, St Patrick — yet it is not part of the Ancient East. The Minister's constituency has a beautiful and wonderful spot, Nendrum, yet it is not part of the Ancient East.”
“When you interrogate that assertion, which I very much believe, I think that it is true for each and all the parts of this part of Ireland that the scale of our industrial, natural, built, archaeological and Christian heritage is bigger than that in any other part of these islands. It is no less true for East Antrim, and for all the places that have been named by other MLAs. From south of Carrick, through Carrick and up to the glens, you can see therein the scale and wonder of that heritage, including, in one way, lesser-known opportunities such as the salt mines at Kilroot. I spent a summer working in those salt mines in Carrickfergus — voluntarily, I might add — loading the boats as they came in from Belfast lough. That in itself is untapped potential of the experience in East Antrim.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment to the role. Obviously, I am not an MLA for the area, but I spent much of my childhood there. We had day trips from Greenisland up the Antrim coast and holidays in Ballycastle, so that may give me a little bit of insight. The clock is not on, so I am sure that I will get an extra bit of time. <BR /> <BR />When I was in government in the old DOE, I was down at an event in Armagh Planetarium, and I had to introduce a guest. I finished my introduction by looking over my left shoulder at the guest and asking whether he agreed with me that the scale, wonder and beauty of Northern Ireland's natural, built, archaeological, Christian and industrial heritage was greater in this part of Ireland than in any parts of these islands.”
“— should we not also have a commitment to funding childcare as a flagship project over the next five years, not least if the money that we are talking about is £40 million?”