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 9 of 32.
“Nonetheless, as part of the Programme for Government, there was a commitment on flagship capital projects, roads, the children's hospital, and other capital developments. The question to the Minister and the Executive is this: should childcare and its proper management and funding not be a defining flagship project for this Government in this mandate? If we can, rightly, commit upfront to funding for various capital projects over the next five years —”
“At the same time, take the opportunity, as was done in DOE, to develop better regulation, if necessary through a Bill, in order to ensure that all who provide childcare have a much more coherent system of dealing with the regulation of their units in terms of the nature, role, remit and responsibilities of the providers of childcare services, and so on and so forth. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, I want to deal briefly with the issue of money, as Phillip Logan mentioned it. As we know, the Programme for Government that went through yesterday is light on detail yet the SDLP was criticised for this motion, which is expansive on detail. Ms Seeley might want to explain that inconsistency some time in the future.”
“That is the case: that was the name of the Bill. However, the intention of the Bill was to provide the statutory basis that I outlined to the House. <BR /> <BR />I look forward to hearing the Executive's childcare strategy and to enhancing that strategy in order to integrate into it, in the fullness of time, the other elements of education policy that touch upon the lives of children and young people. Now that we have a Department that has a more comprehensive and expansive mandate, we need a more comprehensive and expansive childcare strategy.”
“If there is a working model of the Bill in your Department, work it up and bring it to the Floor so that we can create certainty.”
“The intention of that Bill is different from the one that you indicated.”
“<BR /> <BR />The motion has five elements: there are proposals for legal intervention, strategy, regulation, development of the childcare workforce and money. Given that the Minister was not able to touch upon all those issues, I ask that he come back to the Committee and the Chamber with a comprehensive answer in respect of each and all of the five elements. <BR /> <BR />It was Minister O'Dowd who said previously that there would be an early years education and learning Bill. I do not find it satisfactory, Minister, that your reply to that proposal was that that would not deal with childcare provision. It was not meant to deal with childcare provision; it was meant to put into statute a model of funding, supervision and coordination for the delivery of all education and care services for the voluntary, community and statutory sectors.”
“I stand corrected. <BR /> <BR />The conference brought one of the architects of the New Zealand strategy to Northern Ireland so that he could explain what the paradigm shift was and what investing in children from birth to six years old meant to their lives. Given what Nichola Mallon and Eamonn McCann said about the relationship between poverty and childcare, if we are to deal with growing child poverty — as I said yesterday, one independent study suggests that, by 2020, absolute and real child poverty in Northern Ireland will be over 30% and touching upon 35% — we need to learn from the New Zealand experience, which was that breaking the linkage between poverty and child development requires investing in childcare. That requires a paradigm shift that was not reflected in some of what the Minister said.”
“I have two children in primary school, and many Members have or have had children in primary school. The horror of the fact that a principal said children aged four were coming to school not knowing what a pencil was demonstrates why we need a paradigm shift. Such a shift happened in the 1980s in New Zealand, where it was recognised that, in order to deal with all the issues of children, young people and adults, you had to invest in the nought-to-six category. In a couple of weeks' time, at a conference in Enniskillen run by Early Years, one of the architects of that strategy — maybe it has already happened —”
“A number of years ago, a principal in west Belfast told me that children at the age of four were coming into her school who did not know what a pencil was.”
“To be fair, the Minister is only in office, so, in his response, there was a sense of the Civil Service rather than the political. We should give the Minister the opportunity for the political to prevail and for the Civil Service approach, which is characterised by the default position — there was a sense of this in the Minister's reply — and "Why can't we do?" rather than "We must do" seemed to be the approach that was reflected in the Minister's words. I will come back to that.”
“Will we have something that is much more coherent and cohesive so that all our children, whom we cherish, have the opportunities that they are entitled to and ensure that, as Mr Agnew indicated, every £1 invested in childcare can avoid the £17 that is invested later in remedial interventions? That economic fact, independent of the much bigger reasons why we should address the issue, should concentrate minds on the overall issue.”
“I include in that Ms Lockhart's comment that the motion "brings a focus" — to use her words — to the childcare issue. <BR /> <BR />Lord Morrow said that we now have one Department that captures issues for young people and children in one place. That creates a new space and a huge opportunity to shape issues for children and childcare in a way that we have not done before. The measure of this Minister and this Department will be whether, to borrow a phrase from yesterday, there is a paradigm shift for all the reasons that Members outlined. Will there be a paradigm shift, or will we just have the further ad hoc management of childcare issues that has been the practice to date?”
“I might not. First, I publicly congratulate the Minister on his appointment. If you were to go round the Chamber, I do not know whether everyone would say it publicly but many would say privately that the Minister has intelligence and a degree of independence. We hope that, despite some of the things he said in his reply to the debate, he will deploy those skills in his term in office and demonstrate — as, to be fair, his predecessor did — that he knows the difference between being in government and being in power. When you look at the profile of our Ministers over the various mandates, it is very clear who knew the difference between being in government and being in power and who measured up to both requirements. <BR /> <BR />I also congratulate all the new MLAs who made speeches: Ms Seeley, Mrs Barton and Ms Lockhart.”
“I hope that this Programme for Government process measures up because it is very clear that it needs to.”
“The measure of this Programme for Government, which is outcomes-based, should have been upfront commitments so that people in the west know that it will not just be nine miles of the A5 that will be built but that it will be the 50 or 60 miles needed to conclusively deal with regional imbalance. <BR /> <BR />Finally, Mr, I mean Madam, Speaker — I will eventually get used to the right phrasing; I apologise for that — there is the issue of victims. The word "victims" is not mentioned at all in relation to outcomes, indicators or measures. Can you imagine saying to the victims of the conflict and the victims of institutional abuse that that word is not even mentioned? Not even mentioned.”
“Reducing poverty without even using the word "significant" might mean very little in the real world of the people in all our constituencies who are suffering because of disadvantage and discrimination and so on and so forth. <BR /> <BR />The situation is similar with regional imbalance. A commitment, which is a good one, was entered into over the lifetime of this Government on the roll-out of money for the A5. That is good, but remember the background to that. There was a commitment in the last Programme for Government for 2011 to 2015 to deal with regional imbalance. At the end of that, five years later, how was regional imbalance dealt with? By more warm commitments on what might happen in the future.”
“They did not want an outcomes-based approach alone; they wanted something greater. That was the very argument that the SDLP made in the abortive Programme for Government negotiations. We asked for ambition, not just in relation to the flagship projects and much besides but in relation to poverty, regional imbalance and childcare. This document is characterised by warm words on much of that and not much else besides. <BR /> <BR />Listen to what it says about poverty. It says that the commitment will be to reduce the level of poverty. We have a catastrophic situation arising with child poverty. By 2020, it could possibly, in real and absolute terms, be over 30% and approaching 35%. What is the point in making a commitment to reducing poverty if you do not at least say what the scale of that ambition is?”
“The First Minister and the deputy First Minister had to put in the foreword commitments already entered into arising from their commitment to Fresh Start because they realised, too late in the day to form an inclusive Government, that a Programme for Government that was outcomes-based would say to people that it lacked ambition and that is why you had to put in the upfront commitments arising from Fresh Start in relation to the past, in relation to institutional abuse, and not least in relation to multiple flagship projects across the North. It is a hybrid document that is, on the one hand, outcomes-based but, on the other, about upfront commitments to our people. Why? Because our people wanted upfront commitments; they wanted to hear a message of ambition and leadership and scale and volume.”
“It has been very interesting for the last 10 years and longer, but have Ministers, parties and Governments embraced all that which is different in order to demonstrate a paradigm shift? We will wait and see. <BR /> <BR />Of course I welcome an outcomes-based approach to government, but let us recognise what this document is: it is a hybrid document that is part outcomes-based and part upfront commitments.”
“I will give way in a second. It is not just about wanting an outcomes-based approach, which is a better approach, but will we have the paradigm shift that sees government shaped in the image of something very different from the past and more shaped in the image of what happens in Scotland, which has served its people so well?”
“Are we going to have civil servants in Northern Ireland being told to have an open door to the external world when it comes to the shaping of government policy and practice? That is the paradigm shift that we are looking for.”
“Will we, on the far side of this Programme for Government, have a situation like the one in Scotland, in which people are seconded into government for particular Bills or particularly complex areas? In the next Government, will we have a process like the one in Scotland, whereby amendments to Bills are invited into government very early in the legislative period in order to ensure that the external world — NGOs, business and the private sector — has an input in shaping the character of that legislation?”
“From our point of view, however, opposition is not about destroying, demolishing or degrading something; it is about creating and constructing something better in this place — a Government in Northern Ireland for all the people — and, at the same time, demanding the right to dissent because, as somebody said, there is much to dissent from. That includes the content of some of this document. <BR /> <BR />Perhaps today or later, we will hear more about the theme of borrowing from the experience of other jurisdictions, not least the model of the Scottish Government, to inform government in this jurisdiction. If the First Minister is completely genuine about what she says is a new, better, innovative approach, let us embrace all that is new, innovative and better from the Scottish system.”
“Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate you and all Members who are here today, especially the new Members and, in particular, those making their maiden speech. They include Mr Stalford, who made a fine speech — I expected no less — but, if I may make one comment on that speech, it is this: he is, of course, right to assert that opposition that is not about creating and constructing something different is self-indulgent. I agree with the Member in that regard; indeed, there was a time when the DUP might have been very much in the character of that.”
“I choose the Deputy Chair of the Public Accounts Committee and nominate Daniel McCrossan.”
“On behalf of the SDLP, I select the Committee for Finance and Claire Hanna.”
“Mr Speaker, on behalf of the SDLP, we choose the Committee for Communities, and I am pleased to nominate Mr Colum Eastwood MLA.”
“Maybe the Member was not here for my first two points, which were very much sourced in the LCM. However, there is a piece of legislation at Westminster that has relevance to this Chamber every day hereafter until the law might be changed. You may not want to consider those matters, but, if we do not, they will come crashing in on us sooner or later. <BR /> <BR />My final point is that the SDLP proposed building into the Westminster legislation obligations not just on councillors but on others who sit on public bodies. Those obligations would relate to the Nolan principles and would upscale and upgrade the standards around public office at a time when we know from the bitter experience of recent weeks and days that questions still remain unresolved about standards in public office.”
“I will in a second. The SDLP model was to create the role of a pledge adjudicator, appointed by the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints and involving our Lord Chief Justice. If an issue arose with the conduct of a Minister or a Member, there would then be a process whereby that could be interrogated, rather than left for others to determine.”
“Rather than have words on a piece of paper that people can raise their hands to and thereafter be problematic about, the SDLP proposed a model whereby the Pledge of Office and the commitment of Members could be monitored.”
“The obligation, further to that amended Pledge of Office, has three pillars: "unequivocally", "word and deed" and "all efforts". <BR /> <BR />Although I may be straying slightly beyond the LCM, let us be very clear about what those words mean. There have been events on this island in very recent history — in recent weeks — when issues about unequivocal support for the rule of law in word and deed, and all efforts to uphold it, have once again become problematic. That is before the ink on the page of the Westminster Bill is even dry. <BR /> <BR />A second point arises from that, and I urge the House to look at it. The SDLP amendments — maybe the SDLP comes up with this more often than others — produced a model to create a process around the Pledge of Office.”
“First, there is the need to record what the new Pledge of Office means and what the new pledge by Members of the Assembly will mean, once the new mandate is confirmed. It is no coincidence that in the Pledge of Office that is now amended, the first paragraph of that amendment says that Ministers shall:”
“My colleagues in London got some sense, in respect of some of the arguments that the SDLP MPs made on our amendments, that there might have been some margin of sympathy — even from DUP MPs who, as you know, sit behind the SDLP MPs. I suggest to the junior Minister, given that that amendment was rejected and given its extensive scale — no doubt, people will see the fingerprints of Mark Durkan MP all over it — that she consider it and have a discussion with whoever is Minister of Finance after the election in order to scale up the operation of that amendment in terms of the Budget provisions going forward in the future. Both issues are very much sourced in the LCM today. <BR /> <BR />I want to raise the three following points very briefly.”
“Having said that, we welcome the provisions that are now in the legislation in Westminster, but we argued that we should go further. We asked, "What is the real thinking behind all of this?". We argued that we should go further in terms of budgetary processes beyond the welcome addition of the statements that are to be laid in the House in respect of the block grant. <BR /> <BR />In the amendment that we tabled at Westminster last week, we argued for the integration of a lot more rigour into the new budgetary clause in order to have a lot more accountability and transparency. I do not intend to read into the record the amendment, which runs to a full page. It would have interrogated what is now in the Bill in Westminster so that this House would have a lot more knowledge, oversight, accountability and input into the budgetary processes.”
“I make the point that, if the threat of paramilitarism and criminality is one that is shared by all parties and all citizens, it should have been a process of a shared outcome when it came to the appointment of the IRC. <BR /> <BR />The second point that I want to make to the junior Minister is about the budgetary processes. I have to say that, when questions were put to the Minister of Finance during the Final Stage of the Budget Bill a couple of weeks ago in relation to the budgetary process that arises from 'A Fresh Start', I did not get much satisfaction in terms of answers in respect of why this was being required and what the range and potential of these provisions were in respect of the budgetary processes.”
“It is a variation, if you like, on a theme raised in a previous debate: why are FM and dFM taking unto themselves the appointment of chairs or chief executives of certain public bodies under the transfer of functions order? Would it not have been better to source appointments to the IRC in a process requiring the approval of all parties that choose to go into the Executive Committee on the far side of the election on 5 May rather than just the First Ministers? I am not making the point in that regard that, I have no doubt, will be made before the debate is over, unless I misread the situation, about how anybody with any background should have the authority to appoint to an IRC. That is not the point that I am making, although it may be a point that is made after I sit down.”
“<BR /> <BR />The amendment that the SDLP tabled at Westminster last week proposed that two members of the IRC — the Independent Reporting Commission — be appointed by the Northern Ireland Justice Minister following consultation with the First Ministers and subject to the approval of the Executive Committee, instead of being jointly appointed by FM and dFM, as the LCM proposes. My question for the junior Minister is this: given that better work was done in Stormont last autumn on paramilitarism and criminality, would ours not have been the better model? Given that the IRC will monitor what goes on in the community and given that what goes on in the community is of concern to all of us, would it not have been better if the LCM had had that process, with the buy-in of all of the Executive to the nominations to the IRC?”
“The junior Minister will recall that, of the dozen papers that the SDLP contributed to the autumn talks process last year, quite a number dealt with the legacy issue, but two dealt with criminality and paramilitarism. One was on a whole-community approach to criminality and paramilitarism, and the other was on a whole-enforcement approach to paramilitary and criminal activity. Unlike some others, we shared those documents with all parties in an effort to upscale the outcome of the negotiations. In some ways, you can see that contribution in the new commitments entered into in the Westminster legislation on criminality and paramilitarism.”
“I turn, then, to the LCM. Last week, the SDLP took the opportunity to table about a dozen amendments to the Bill proceeding through Westminster. In our view, they would have enhanced what was proposed at Westminster. There are two or three matters that I want to press the junior Minister on, two of which arise immediately from the content of the LCM and one that arises from the broader content of the legislation, which has now been passed by the House of Commons and is on its way to the House of Lords. <BR /> <BR />Without prejudice to our view on 'A Fresh Start', one of the areas on which some progress was made — the junior Minister will recall this — was the commitments entered into, on paper at least, on criminal and paramilitary activity.”
“If I have one regret, it is that, as you will recall, we once hatched a plot to ensure that you were made Speaker, but, when the opportunity presented itself, your service and your status as one of the elders of the House were not fully recognised. Save that, your career has been a monumental contribution to Irish politics and to this part of the island that you love.”
“This is the last occasion on which I will speak in the Chamber in this mandate. It is yet to be determined whether I will have any speaking rights in the next mandate, but I take this moment to speak about you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Over your long years of service, you have been relentless in pursuing the policies and politics that you believe in. You brought colour to the SDLP Assembly group and outside it, and you have been a relentless servant of Irish democracy. As your political career ends, although your political contribution will not end, I put on the record, on behalf of me, my party and, I am sure, everybody in the Chamber, how much your work has been appreciated here and outside of here, both in dark days and in better days.”
“If you believe that there is a need for cross-community support for some matters, why do you not apply that logic and have OFMDFM appoint people to those sorts of posts? If that is the logic of your assertion, why do you not follow that logic through and apply it in other places? If you do not apply it in other places, why do you reserve that power to OFMDFM?”
“The junior Minister said that, when it came to appointments, it was necessary for some public appointments to have cross-community support. If that is the logic that she is deploying, I suggest that those who believe in that argument should bring proposals forward so as to do the exact same for all appointments made by the Justice Minister. The House appoints the Justice Minister on the basis of what? Cross-community support. If you believe that that office requires cross-community support, given the importance of so many of the persons nominated by the Justice Minister's powers — to the Probation Board, the Policing Board and the Judicial Appointments Commission — why is there not a need for cross-community support for those very sensitive matters?”
“I suggest that the Minister might want to explain why, when we are going through the elaborate exercise of reducing the number of Departments and reconfiguring their functions, the responsibility for further scoping out the issue of victims and survivors is devolved to the Department of Health while the function is retained by FM and dfM. It is another example, I suggest, of something that, on the face of it, looks incongruous. <BR />I might have wished to elaborate on other matters, but, given the limitations on what we can do on this motion and given other news, I leave it there.”
“The reason I make that point is that there is an event upstairs at the moment at which the fullest range of victims and survivors' groups are putting forward proposals on, for example, models of compensation for those subjected to institutional abuse or clerical abuse outside the institutions and those who had experiences in mother-and-baby homes. The people of great authority and very harsh experience who are in the Building are here in the context of FM and dFM retaining the functions in respect of victims and survivors, and yet, two or three weeks ago, it was decided in the Executive to transfer to the Department of Health the responsibility for scoping out what may or may not happen in respect of those who were subjected to clerical abuse and those who lived in mother-and-baby homes.”
“I ask the junior Minister to explain why that is the case. There have been occasions during the last two mandates when the issue of appointment by FM and dFM has become a matter of some tension. There were questions raised about a number of appointments of victims' commissioners over the last decade, and some would say that questions were raised about one or two appointments in other areas. Why retain the power of appointment when you transfer in totality all the other powers on those matters to another Department? <BR /> <BR />The second issue is that it is one thing to transfer function; it is another matter to retain function but transfer responsibility.”
“On the one hand, for example — unless I am very much in error, and I do not think that I am — responsibility for older people and children is being transferred to another Department, but the power to appoint the respective commissioners of the two statutory bodies is retained by FM and dFM. Here we have a situation where the function is transferred but the power of appointment is retained. The function is transferred in its totality, and the expertise, the staff, the specialism and the depth of knowledge will be in a different Department from the Department that appoints. Unless I am in error, that looks incongruous. Surely the power of appointment should fall to the Department that has exclusive responsibility for the function, but that is not to be the case. In this instance, the power of appointment is to be retained by FM and dFM.”
“Had there been an opportunity to amend the order before the House today, the SDLP would have sought to amend it because there appear to be tensions in the proposals on the transfer of functions. I do not think that this is the day to elaborate greatly on that matter, but I ask the junior Minister to respond to two points that represent the issues that the SDLP would have elaborated on had there been a better procedure in that regard. <BR /> <BR />The first point is that functions are being transferred from FM and dFM to the new Departments, but not every function is being transferred. On the face of it, that creates a tension.”
“I entirely endorse and agree with the comments made by the last two Members on the terrible news that the prison officer who was attacked recently has died. There seemed to be some sense that the prison officer was in the process of recovery, and to hear this news in the last few minutes makes a terrible situation appear even worse. The sympathy of our party and, no doubt, everybody in the House goes to his family, his colleagues and the Prison Service generally. I concur with Mr Lyttle's comment that the single best response of every citizen is to share every single piece of information that they may have about this attack with the PSNI, and all should respond in that way.”
“I ask the Minister to answer those two questions in his reply. The bedroom tax has been the most punitive of nearly all the measures being proposed by the British Government. In that regard, having certainty, even at this late stage, would be welcome.”