:00:27. > :00:31.edition of Stormont Today. As temperatures soared to their highest
:00:31. > :00:35.this year under a blazing summer sun, things were just as hot, if not
:00:35. > :00:38.hotter, in the chamber. In a specially recalled sitting, MLAs
:00:38. > :00:47.clashed repeatedly as they debated last week's Spotlight programme on
:00:47. > :00:51.Nelson McCausland and the Housing Executive. There is no place for
:00:51. > :00:57.brown envelope culture anywhere on this island. The BBC have been
:00:57. > :01:02.absolutely scandalous in the way they have treated this issue.
:01:02. > :01:05.have to say to the Democratic Unionist party, have you no shame?
:01:05. > :01:14.We'll get a comprehensive view of that often bad-tempered two and a
:01:14. > :01:18.special sitting today and when the Assembly meets, Stormont Today is
:01:18. > :01:21.there to cover it. So with the sun splitting the stones and
:01:21. > :01:25.temperatures soaring, members delayed their break and made their
:01:25. > :01:27.way to the hill to discuss last week's BBC Spotlight claims. The
:01:27. > :01:29.programme raised issues of political interference in the workings of the
:01:29. > :01:36.Housing Executive by the Social Development Minister, Nelson
:01:36. > :01:40.McCausland. With me throughout, our Political Reporter, Stephen Walker.
:01:40. > :01:49.Stormont was meant to be in recess today. Just remind us of how we came
:01:49. > :01:52.to be back here again. You are right, we didn't expect to be here.
:01:52. > :01:56.MLAs and their staff didn't expect to be here. This all came about
:01:56. > :02:00.because of last week 's programme and the general thrust of the
:02:00. > :02:05.programme, it concerned allegations of political interference in the
:02:05. > :02:08.Housing Executive. We've made a number of key allegations. The
:02:08. > :02:12.programme looked at the behaviour of Stephen Brimstone, the special
:02:13. > :02:16.adviser of the Housing Minister, Nelson McCausland. There was an
:02:16. > :02:19.allegation that Stephen Brimstone had tried to pressurise the DUP
:02:19. > :02:24.councillor by phoning her, to try and pressure right to change her
:02:24. > :02:29.vote at a key Housing Executive meeting. He disputes that, although
:02:29. > :02:34.the councillor, Jenny Palma, is standing by her version of events.
:02:34. > :02:40.Another part of the investigation looked at Nelson McCausland
:02:40. > :02:44.attending a meeting with the red sky, these were a contract who work
:02:44. > :02:49.with the Housing Executive. The programme looked at red sky in great
:02:49. > :02:53.detail. Another part of the programme raised questions about the
:02:53. > :02:57.way Nelson McCausland had handled a meeting involving a double glazing
:02:57. > :03:01.firm. And there were allegations he could possibly have given a wrong
:03:01. > :03:05.impression when he presented evidence to the assembly. Those were
:03:05. > :03:10.the allegations that were looked at after last week Spotlight programme.
:03:10. > :03:14.What happened today was those probe -- migrations were put forward in a
:03:14. > :03:21.motion, it was supported by the UUP, the SDLP and Sinn Fein
:03:21. > :03:28.alliance. That was the substantive motion that was today. Thank you.
:03:28. > :03:34.There were two amendments tabled to today's motion. But first, here's
:03:34. > :03:40.Caitriona Ruane leading off the debate on the main motion.
:03:40. > :03:44.Spotlight programme aired serious allegations of corruption, financial
:03:44. > :03:50.corruption and political corruption. Those allegations in the public mind
:03:50. > :03:53.call into question two of our major institutions. The Housing Executive
:03:53. > :03:58.and our political institutions. The public is rightly asking questions
:03:58. > :04:02.about whether or not political influence can ensure the awarding of
:04:02. > :04:09.public contracts, or even if it can ensure that business competitors
:04:09. > :04:12.will not be awarded them. They are asking if political influence can
:04:12. > :04:16.ensure political favours. There is a perception that Minister McCausland
:04:16. > :04:21.has raised issues around other contractors to muddy the waters
:04:21. > :04:27.around red sky, when in fact there was no comparison. I am calling on
:04:27. > :04:32.the Minister to do the honourable thing and step aside from his role
:04:32. > :04:36.as Minister, upon completion of an inquiry and investigative processes.
:04:36. > :04:40.The precedent for setting aside and allowing an investigation to take
:04:40. > :04:47.place has already been set by the Minister's party leader. The
:04:47. > :04:51.programme reminded people of the Minister's desired approach to
:04:51. > :04:56.retain red sky, despite the overwhelming evidence of its
:04:56. > :05:03.wrongdoing. Such an approach was a clear demonstration at best of the
:05:03. > :05:13.Minister 's poor political judgment, or, at worst, as some might suggest
:05:13. > :05:13.
:05:13. > :05:17.of boxing of party supporters. The DUP and Nelson McCausland have major
:05:17. > :05:23.questions to answer. Teddington Holdings is owned by Trevor
:05:23. > :05:30.Turkington. A public supporter of the DUP. He nominated Stephen in
:05:30. > :05:40.2011. Is Trevor Turkington or his company a DUP donor? I will give the
:05:40. > :05:43.
:05:43. > :05:50.floor to the DUP if they would like to answer this question. Do Red Sky
:05:50. > :05:59.or any of their directors donate to the DUP, and is Trevor Turkington or
:05:59. > :06:05.his company a DUP donor dashing yes or no? The honourable member made an
:06:05. > :06:09.allegation which I believe is factually incorrect, that the
:06:10. > :06:15.Minister was summoned to the committee. Is it not the case that
:06:15. > :06:22.the Minister volunteer to come to the committee? Can she tell us how
:06:22. > :06:27.big the brown envelope it was for the �26 million from the IRA?
:06:27. > :06:33.deeply disappointed that the DUP approach to the debate. The use of a
:06:33. > :06:36.Petition of Concern in this instance is wrong and inappropriate. It sends
:06:36. > :06:40.out a message to the public that the DUP think they can abuse these
:06:40. > :06:44.institutions instead of answering the questions that need to be
:06:44. > :06:48.answered. So there were two amendments tabled to that main
:06:48. > :06:51.motion, the first from the DUP. Stephen, why did the DUP put its own
:06:52. > :06:56.amendment to the motion? They were unhappy with the wording, they felt
:06:56. > :07:00.it was far too narrow. They put forward an amendment that said any
:07:00. > :07:03.investigation must include Brian Rowntree, who was involved in the
:07:03. > :07:07.Housing Executive. They said an inquiry should look at allegations
:07:07. > :07:12.that have been made by politicians in recent days since the broadcast.
:07:12. > :07:16.They wanted the investigation to include an inquiry into other
:07:16. > :07:21.companies. And also the role of the Housing ministers. So they really
:07:22. > :07:24.wanted to widen the whole remit. DUP then tabled a Petition of
:07:25. > :07:29.Concern today, which had implications for the vote, whenever
:07:29. > :07:33.it came. That was flagged up last week, it caused quite a lot of
:07:33. > :07:37.controversy. A lot of other politicians felt that was an attempt
:07:37. > :07:42.to squeeze down the debate. They placed this Petition of Concern, and
:07:42. > :07:45.that basically meant, despite what happened in the vote, unless it had
:07:45. > :07:48.DUP support, that motion wouldn't go through. Here's Gregory Campbell
:07:48. > :07:52.proposing that amendment, and he had strong criticism of both the Housing
:07:52. > :08:00.Executive and the BBC. Last Thursday, the minister came before
:08:00. > :08:04.the committee and the quote that I have on Hansard was, I confirmed to
:08:04. > :08:12.the then chairman, Brian Rowntree, that the Housing Executive should
:08:12. > :08:16.proceed with the termination of the red sky group contracts. Those who
:08:16. > :08:21.allege that the Minister for social development actually wanted to keep
:08:21. > :08:26.Red Sky doing what they were doing, keep them in the position that they
:08:26. > :08:35.were in our inaccurate. The next day after the Minister was with the
:08:35. > :08:40.committee, the controller general's report was issued. I have a number
:08:40. > :08:43.of quotes I want to make. They said, I have previously reported my
:08:43. > :08:50.concerns relating to the executive's management of
:08:50. > :08:55.contractors. Plural. Carrying out response based on -- in on. These
:08:55. > :09:00.related to issues such as quality of workmanship and overcharging by
:09:00. > :09:05.contractors. Plural. Initially problems were identified in relation
:09:05. > :09:09.to one contractor, Red Sky, who have eyed response and internet services
:09:09. > :09:15.across a number of districts. Further examination was then carried
:09:15. > :09:21.out, both by my staff and the Department, who commissioned a firm
:09:21. > :09:25.of accountants to report to the Minister. Both of these examinations
:09:25. > :09:31.have identified significant and systemic issues relating to the
:09:31. > :09:36.management of contractors. Plural. I'm very concerned that the Housing
:09:36. > :09:39.Executive appearing to luck controls results in this. I'm also
:09:39. > :09:44.disappointed that these issues were not addressed earlier. Either when
:09:44. > :09:54.they were first identified by the scheme's inspection unit in 2010.
:09:54. > :09:56.
:09:56. > :10:00.2010! Or when the issues were raised again in the corporate assurance
:10:00. > :10:07.unit review in November 2011. Unfortunately there was a
:10:07. > :10:12.considerable degree of challenge by Housing Executive management to the
:10:12. > :10:19.findings of the corporate assurance unit. Who was in position in 2010?
:10:19. > :10:29.Who was the Minister? Minister Atwood was the Minister. Sometimes
:10:29. > :10:35.people in public life accused the media in a very broad sense of being
:10:35. > :10:43.partisan. I'm not going to accuse the media of being partisan. But I'm
:10:43. > :10:48.going to say that the BBC have been absolutely scandalous in the way
:10:48. > :10:53.they have treated this issue. Both in their programme and in their
:10:53. > :10:59.interview subsequently. We, in this party, stand over what our Minister
:10:59. > :11:04.has done to try and expose corruption rather than assist it. We
:11:05. > :11:08.stand over his integrity. Let us see if others, both inside this assembly
:11:08. > :11:13.and outside, can do likewise. let's talk about the second
:11:13. > :11:19.amendment which was tabled by the TUV MLA, Jim Allister. He supported
:11:19. > :11:23.the main motion that was put together. However, what Jim Allister
:11:23. > :11:27.wanted was an amendment to that motion, where he was calling for
:11:27. > :11:32.Nelson McCausland to resign. He feels the Minister basically has to
:11:32. > :11:36.go. As we are about to see shortly, when Jim Allister spoke in the
:11:36. > :11:38.chamber, it sparked some of the fiercest exchanges we saw during the
:11:38. > :11:46.entire debate. Jim Allister's speech proposing that amendment produced
:11:46. > :11:51.one of the most bruising encounters of the day. It is the Minister that
:11:51. > :11:57.this House can hold to account. And that is why that is the focus, and
:11:57. > :12:03.should be the focus, of this debate. But true to form, of course, the DUP
:12:03. > :12:08.has tabled an amendment. An attempt to divert and divide attention away
:12:08. > :12:17.from the issue. A desperate attempt to muddy the waters as much as they
:12:17. > :12:25.can. We heard Mr Campbell today, as we heard him on BBC last week. I
:12:25. > :12:30.think anyone can see through it. Me thinks he does protest too much. In
:12:30. > :12:36.the desperate attempts to muddy the waters in these issues. In holding a
:12:36. > :12:46.Minister to account, let us remind ourselves of the requirements of the
:12:46. > :12:51.Ministerial Code of conduct. It requires a minister to observe the
:12:51. > :12:53.highest standards of propriety and regularity involving impartiality,
:12:53. > :12:59.integrity and objectivity in relation to the stewardship of
:12:59. > :13:06.public funds. It records reference to the seven principles of public
:13:06. > :13:11.life. One of those is integrity and another of which is openness. It is
:13:11. > :13:18.against those standards that I invite the House to judge the
:13:18. > :13:23.Minister today. Mr Speaker, the member has drawn attention to the
:13:23. > :13:33.Ministerial Code Of Conduct. Would you like to ask the member, is he
:13:33. > :13:36.aware of the Members Code Of Conduct and that there is a requirement of
:13:36. > :13:40.transparency and openness? Would he like to take this opportunity to
:13:40. > :13:44.declare any interest that he might have had in terms of any of those
:13:44. > :13:53.who were mentioned in the Spotlight programme?
:13:53. > :14:01.THE ALL GASP Mr Speaker, I have no such interest
:14:01. > :14:07.to declare, except, that when, as a practising barrister, I gave advice
:14:07. > :14:13.to Mr Turkington, in respect of matters. Absolutely nothing to do
:14:13. > :14:16.with this case or anything else. I thought when the First Minister rose
:14:16. > :14:22.to his feet to talk about transparency that he might have been
:14:22. > :14:31.going to tell us about the details of his relationship with various
:14:31. > :14:39.people. Order!I have to see to the Democratic Unionist Party, have you
:14:39. > :14:45.no shame? You would use your position and office, abuse it, to
:14:45. > :14:50.press your own member who dared to stand in your way to stop to promote
:14:50. > :14:54.a commercial interest -- in your way. To promote a commercial
:14:54. > :14:58.interest of someone who was a political body. Did you win nothing
:14:58. > :15:02.-- learn nothing from the �5 land deals and the various property
:15:02. > :15:09.scandals of a few years ago? Israel are against such that you think you
:15:09. > :15:16.can still above our -- is your add against such that you think you can
:15:16. > :15:23.still abuse power? Point of order, would the member like to acquaint
:15:23. > :15:33.the House with his own begging for funds from developers? I have not
:15:33. > :15:34.
:15:34. > :15:44.begged for funds from anyone! I may have learnt order! The member's time
:15:44. > :15:46.
:15:46. > :15:52.has gone. I may have been exposed to such tricks but I learnt no such
:15:52. > :16:02.tricks. My integrity stands. I must insist. The members should take his
:16:02. > :16:04.
:16:04. > :16:08.seat. I have -- they have no shame. Order! The member's time is up.
:16:08. > :16:15.testing afternoon and the temperature did not drop there.
:16:15. > :16:18.There were contributions from across the House, including Alex Attwood, a
:16:18. > :16:24.one-time social Development Minister. First, Stewart Dickson
:16:24. > :16:28.from the Alliance Party. Transparency is the most effective
:16:28. > :16:34.public inoculation against corruption that any country can
:16:34. > :16:39.have. What is at stake is the eyes of -- is, and eyes of the public,
:16:39. > :16:42.the integrity of the House. We are alternate by these events and will
:16:42. > :16:48.remain so unless, and until, there is an independent, full and
:16:48. > :16:52.transparent investigation. The consequentialism of what are brought
:16:52. > :16:58.to life should be -- the consequences must be faced. This
:16:58. > :17:00.comes down to a fundamental issue. It is a fundamental issue of a few
:17:00. > :17:05.relationship between one party and business and commercial and
:17:05. > :17:14.development interests. That is what this debate is about. Let's look at
:17:14. > :17:17.what the responsibility is. This is a quote, it is important but there
:17:17. > :17:24.is public confidence in the individuals who are appointed.
:17:24. > :17:28.Otherwise, there is a risk of repetition or damage. Special
:17:28. > :17:32.advisers subject to general cause, including, and relation to, the
:17:32. > :17:36.standards of relation of conduct and codes of ethics. It says, quote,
:17:36. > :17:43.special advisers must not take part in the work of their party's
:17:43. > :17:49.national organisation. Quote, must not take part in the work of their
:17:49. > :17:56.party's national organisation. The question, Mr Speaker, is this, did
:17:56. > :18:03.the act unilaterally? Was this man out of control or very much under
:18:03. > :18:08.control, is not of the DFT administer, of who, in those ranks,
:18:08. > :18:12.are those who are not sitting in those ranks? He was either out of
:18:12. > :18:15.control, in which case he should be dismissed, or he was under the
:18:15. > :18:21.control and direction of individuals inside this chamber, or otherwise,
:18:21. > :18:25.and we need to know. During my time and the time of my predecessor,
:18:25. > :18:30.there was never like it, in terms of interrogation of the affairs of the
:18:30. > :18:38.Housing Executive, and that was reported to the committee and this
:18:38. > :18:42.chamber. What does the DUP do? They rush to protect those who were
:18:42. > :18:48.indicted. Indicted by the Housing Executive board and by independent
:18:48. > :18:56.inquiry. The First Minister, as an Executive meeting, says, quote, this
:18:56. > :18:59.decision around the Housing Executive, quote, this decision had
:18:59. > :19:03.a sectarian background with a Nationalist minister and a national
:19:03. > :19:09.gear. -- Nationalist gear. Does that not tell you all you need to know
:19:09. > :19:12.about the view of some but not many in this chamber?
:19:12. > :19:18.Nelson McCausland also got his chance to have his seat. He told the
:19:18. > :19:27.House that he had always carried out his duties with integrity. His
:19:27. > :19:35.special adviser, Stewart Brimstone, said this in a phone call that --
:19:35. > :19:38.phone call. I want to pick up on a phone call made in 2000 oven. It
:19:38. > :19:44.would have been wrong, I believe, and the miss of the special
:19:44. > :19:50.adviser, if he had not sought to explain to a member of the board,
:19:50. > :19:55.with whom he had contact and it was a short, eight minute conversation,
:19:55. > :20:03.some understanding of the broader context of all this. Because,
:20:03. > :20:06.already at that point, it was abundantly clear that wrongdoing was
:20:06. > :20:13.not restricted to one contract or indeed to one Housing Executive
:20:13. > :20:18.district. We know that. Because already, one year previously, under
:20:18. > :20:26.the SDLP, it was becoming clear that there were concerns within the
:20:26. > :20:31.Housing Executive at 32nd contract. -- about a second contract. You do
:20:31. > :20:36.not need to be a genius to work out that if you have more than one
:20:36. > :20:40.contract involved, and there were concerns about that, and if you have
:20:40. > :20:46.more than one Housing Executive district involved, it starts to
:20:46. > :20:54.become clear that this was something endemic, something systemic, within
:20:54. > :20:57.the whole process in relation to contracts. And yet, when I spoke to
:20:57. > :21:03.the chairman of the Housing Executive at a meeting, and when he
:21:03. > :21:09.responded them subsequently in writing, he was assuring me that we
:21:09. > :21:13.have robust systems in the Housing Executive. "We can stand over
:21:14. > :21:17.things, we are robust." In fact, at an earlier meeting mentioned in the
:21:17. > :21:24.report, the then acting chief Executive, Mr Stewart Cuddy, as
:21:24. > :21:30.surely those at the meeting that the Housing Executive closely monitors
:21:30. > :21:36.all of its contractors. -- ensured those at the meeting. The monitor
:21:36. > :21:40.them so closely that the current chairman has to come before the
:21:40. > :21:47.media and say, " well, actually, we have located a review and there may
:21:47. > :21:51.be as much as �18 million of work that was overpaid."
:21:51. > :21:54.When it came to closing speeches, Jim Allister was back in a speech,
:21:54. > :21:57.followed by Sammy Wilson and the Ulster Unionist leader, Mike
:21:57. > :22:07.Nesbitt. Esther Wilson made it clear the Minister has his party's
:22:07. > :22:12.backing. Let's just look and see what members have said today. Mr
:22:12. > :22:15.Durkin wants to make sure that we do not award a full investigation. Mr
:22:15. > :22:22.Alistair wants to make sure we do not divert attention from the real
:22:22. > :22:31.issues. Another wants fundamental questions answered. Mr Copeland
:22:31. > :22:34.wants a full inquiry. Another wants an intervention -- who thinks an
:22:34. > :22:37.intervention means that you believe him, wants to make sure that no
:22:38. > :22:42.investigation is bullied. Mr McRae wants to make sure that we agree to
:22:42. > :22:48.a full review. Well, what is the only motion which is on the order
:22:48. > :22:54.paper? It fulfils all that criteria. The only motion is the motion and
:22:54. > :22:59.the amendment down in the name of the DUP. Why have you put down a
:22:59. > :23:04.petition? That is themselves. We put down a Petition of Concern two
:23:04. > :23:08.reasons. First of all, we want a full inquiry. Secondly, we are not
:23:08. > :23:13.going to allow this to be kicked around and some political game.
:23:13. > :23:19.Petition of Concern, Mr Speaker, is a projection of politics, not a
:23:19. > :23:26.political party. -- a projection. It was designed as a safeguard against
:23:26. > :23:30.sectarian politics. Interest, -- interestingly, David Campbell, much
:23:30. > :23:39.maligned by certain members of the House, was an offer of the Belfast
:23:39. > :23:49.agreement while you went a order! The member... Order! The member must
:23:49. > :23:51.
:23:51. > :23:55.be heard. Order. Mr Campbell, an architect and author of the Belfast
:23:55. > :24:01.agreement, something that was signed while the DUP stood rattling the
:24:01. > :24:06.grapes Dom aggregates and marching their trips up and down principal
:24:06. > :24:16.avenue said it was a safeguard. -- rattling the gates and marching
:24:16. > :24:18.
:24:18. > :24:22.their troops. Order. The member must be heard. Let us have remarks.
:24:22. > :24:24.Campbell has written to the Secretary of State to say that since
:24:24. > :24:30.the Assembly first sat, I believe the Petition of Concern has largely
:24:30. > :24:35.worked as intended. It is a safeguard. However, the recent years
:24:35. > :24:41.by the DUP, over a potential vote on the alleged actions of DST Minister
:24:41. > :24:50.Nelson McCausland, is a blatant abuse of the procedure. The petition
:24:50. > :24:53.is to prevent... Order. Point of order. The member has accused user
:24:53. > :24:57.of being in a position where you have allowed an abuse of the rules
:24:57. > :25:04.of this Assembly. I think that is a challenge to your role and position.
:25:04. > :25:10.You need to make it clear that the Petition of Concern is in order and
:25:10. > :25:17.legitimately has been placed before the House. Let me say at the outset
:25:17. > :25:23.of this debate this afternoon and get it clear, the petition before us
:25:23. > :25:27.was accurate and within standing orders of the size.
:25:27. > :25:32.I was with Minister McCausland in Cardiff for two days. We all signed
:25:32. > :25:36.up to a statement. Consequences for communities and individuals for
:25:36. > :25:41.breaking the law. The same applies to the ministerial code. He should
:25:41. > :25:48.stand aside. I asked the DUP, what comes first? The integrity of
:25:48. > :25:54.politics of Stormont or the party? With the debate at an end, the only
:25:54. > :25:56.thing left was to vote, three Bolton. First came the DUP
:25:56. > :26:00.Amendment, followed by Jim Allister's and then the actual
:26:00. > :26:08.motion itself. Gossipy Petition of Concern, it needed crossed amenities
:26:08. > :26:14.support to succeed. -- because of the Petition of Concern.
:26:14. > :26:24.amendment falls. The amendment falls. We now move to amendment
:26:24. > :26:28.
:26:28. > :26:37.number two. All those in favour say. All those to the contrary noes.
:26:37. > :26:43.The nose habit. -- noes habit. Can I ask members to please take their
:26:43. > :26:51.seats and can I ask for the result to be read?
:26:51. > :27:00.88 members voted, of which 54 voted yes, 61.4%. 32 nationalists sported
:27:00. > :27:06.of which 100% voted yes. 32% of Unionists voted yes. The motion is
:27:06. > :27:12.negative. A day of high drama at Stormont.
:27:12. > :27:16.Stephen Walker is still with me. Put today into context for us. I think,
:27:16. > :27:23.Mark, you and I have watched many debates and that is one of the most
:27:23. > :27:27.robust debates I think we have seen in the past few months. Very frank
:27:28. > :27:31.exchanges were heard tonight between politicians. Very tense exchanges.
:27:31. > :27:39.Particularly the exchange between the First Minister and Jim Allister.
:27:39. > :27:44.Lots of pressure being heaped on the DUP. Other parties demanding answers
:27:44. > :27:48.from Nelson McCausland. The DUP coming back very robust, basically
:27:48. > :27:55.saying that that nothing untoward has been done. Politics laid bare.
:27:55. > :28:02.Particularly, the divisions within Unionism laid bare because somebody
:28:02. > :28:04.heated exchanges between the UUP and the DUP. Do we know what happens
:28:04. > :28:08.next? We are going into a summer recess.
:28:08. > :28:11.Abel will draw breath for the moment but in terms of the story goes, the
:28:11. > :28:15.next big thing will be the deliberations of the social
:28:15. > :28:20.development committee. They have launched an inquiry and with the
:28:20. > :28:22.summer recess, it is highly likely that we won't get answers to those
:28:22. > :28:28.questions until Stormont comes back in the autumn.