08/07/2013 Stormont Today

edition of Stormont Today. As temperatures soared to their highest

this year under a blazing summer sun, things were just as hot, if not

hotter, in the chamber. In a specially recalled sitting, MLAs

clashed repeatedly as they debated last week's Spotlight programme on

Nelson McCausland and the Housing Executive. There is no place for

brown envelope culture anywhere on this island. The BBC have been

absolutely scandalous in the way they have treated this issue.

have to say to the Democratic Unionist party, have you no shame?

We'll get a comprehensive view of that often bad-tempered two and a

special sitting today and when the Assembly meets, Stormont Today is

there to cover it. So with the sun splitting the stones and

temperatures soaring, members delayed their break and made their

way to the hill to discuss last week's BBC Spotlight claims. The

programme raised issues of political interference in the workings of the

Housing Executive by the Social Development Minister, Nelson

McCausland. With me throughout, our Political Reporter, Stephen Walker.

Stormont was meant to be in recess today. Just remind us of how we came

to be back here again. You are right, we didn't expect to be here.

MLAs and their staff didn't expect to be here. This all came about

because of last week 's programme and the general thrust of the

programme, it concerned allegations of political interference in the

Housing Executive. We've made a number of key allegations. The

programme looked at the behaviour of Stephen Brimstone, the special

adviser of the Housing Minister, Nelson McCausland. There was an

allegation that Stephen Brimstone had tried to pressurise the DUP

councillor by phoning her, to try and pressure right to change her

vote at a key Housing Executive meeting. He disputes that, although

the councillor, Jenny Palma, is standing by her version of events.

Another part of the investigation looked at Nelson McCausland

attending a meeting with the red sky, these were a contract who work

with the Housing Executive. The programme looked at red sky in great

detail. Another part of the programme raised questions about the

way Nelson McCausland had handled a meeting involving a double glazing

firm. And there were allegations he could possibly have given a wrong

impression when he presented evidence to the assembly. Those were

the allegations that were looked at after last week Spotlight programme.

What happened today was those probe -- migrations were put forward in a

motion, it was supported by the UUP, the SDLP and Sinn Fein

alliance. That was the substantive motion that was today. Thank you.

There were two amendments tabled to today's motion. But first, here's

Caitriona Ruane leading off the debate on the main motion.

Spotlight programme aired serious allegations of corruption, financial

corruption and political corruption. Those allegations in the public mind

call into question two of our major institutions. The Housing Executive

and our political institutions. The public is rightly asking questions

about whether or not political influence can ensure the awarding of

public contracts, or even if it can ensure that business competitors

will not be awarded them. They are asking if political influence can

ensure political favours. There is a perception that Minister McCausland

has raised issues around other contractors to muddy the waters

around red sky, when in fact there was no comparison. I am calling on

the Minister to do the honourable thing and step aside from his role

as Minister, upon completion of an inquiry and investigative processes.

The precedent for setting aside and allowing an investigation to take

place has already been set by the Minister's party leader. The

programme reminded people of the Minister's desired approach to

retain red sky, despite the overwhelming evidence of its

wrongdoing. Such an approach was a clear demonstration at best of the

Minister 's poor political judgment, or, at worst, as some might suggest

of boxing of party supporters. The DUP and Nelson McCausland have major

questions to answer. Teddington Holdings is owned by Trevor

Turkington. A public supporter of the DUP. He nominated Stephen in

2011. Is Trevor Turkington or his company a DUP donor? I will give the

floor to the DUP if they would like to answer this question. Do Red Sky

or any of their directors donate to the DUP, and is Trevor Turkington or

his company a DUP donor dashing yes or no? The honourable member made an

allegation which I believe is factually incorrect, that the

Minister was summoned to the committee. Is it not the case that

the Minister volunteer to come to the committee? Can she tell us how

big the brown envelope it was for the �26 million from the IRA?

deeply disappointed that the DUP approach to the debate. The use of a

Petition of Concern in this instance is wrong and inappropriate. It sends

out a message to the public that the DUP think they can abuse these

institutions instead of answering the questions that need to be

answered. So there were two amendments tabled to that main

motion, the first from the DUP. Stephen, why did the DUP put its own

amendment to the motion? They were unhappy with the wording, they felt

it was far too narrow. They put forward an amendment that said any

investigation must include Brian Rowntree, who was involved in the

Housing Executive. They said an inquiry should look at allegations

that have been made by politicians in recent days since the broadcast.

They wanted the investigation to include an inquiry into other

companies. And also the role of the Housing ministers. So they really

wanted to widen the whole remit. DUP then tabled a Petition of

Concern today, which had implications for the vote, whenever

it came. That was flagged up last week, it caused quite a lot of

controversy. A lot of other politicians felt that was an attempt

to squeeze down the debate. They placed this Petition of Concern, and

that basically meant, despite what happened in the vote, unless it had

DUP support, that motion wouldn't go through. Here's Gregory Campbell

proposing that amendment, and he had strong criticism of both the Housing

Executive and the BBC. Last Thursday, the minister came before

the committee and the quote that I have on Hansard was, I confirmed to

the then chairman, Brian Rowntree, that the Housing Executive should

proceed with the termination of the red sky group contracts. Those who

allege that the Minister for social development actually wanted to keep

Red Sky doing what they were doing, keep them in the position that they

were in our inaccurate. The next day after the Minister was with the

committee, the controller general's report was issued. I have a number

of quotes I want to make. They said, I have previously reported my

concerns relating to the executive's management of

contractors. Plural. Carrying out response based on -- in on. These

related to issues such as quality of workmanship and overcharging by

contractors. Plural. Initially problems were identified in relation

to one contractor, Red Sky, who have eyed response and internet services

across a number of districts. Further examination was then carried

out, both by my staff and the Department, who commissioned a firm

of accountants to report to the Minister. Both of these examinations

have identified significant and systemic issues relating to the

management of contractors. Plural. I'm very concerned that the Housing

Executive appearing to luck controls results in this. I'm also

disappointed that these issues were not addressed earlier. Either when

they were first identified by the scheme's inspection unit in 2010.

2010! Or when the issues were raised again in the corporate assurance

unit review in November 2011. Unfortunately there was a

considerable degree of challenge by Housing Executive management to the

findings of the corporate assurance unit. Who was in position in 2010?

Who was the Minister? Minister Atwood was the Minister. Sometimes

people in public life accused the media in a very broad sense of being

partisan. I'm not going to accuse the media of being partisan. But I'm

going to say that the BBC have been absolutely scandalous in the way

they have treated this issue. Both in their programme and in their

interview subsequently. We, in this party, stand over what our Minister

has done to try and expose corruption rather than assist it. We

stand over his integrity. Let us see if others, both inside this assembly

and outside, can do likewise. let's talk about the second

amendment which was tabled by the TUV MLA, Jim Allister. He supported

the main motion that was put together. However, what Jim Allister

wanted was an amendment to that motion, where he was calling for

Nelson McCausland to resign. He feels the Minister basically has to

go. As we are about to see shortly, when Jim Allister spoke in the

chamber, it sparked some of the fiercest exchanges we saw during the

entire debate. Jim Allister's speech proposing that amendment produced

one of the most bruising encounters of the day. It is the Minister that

this House can hold to account. And that is why that is the focus, and

should be the focus, of this debate. But true to form, of course, the DUP

has tabled an amendment. An attempt to divert and divide attention away

from the issue. A desperate attempt to muddy the waters as much as they

can. We heard Mr Campbell today, as we heard him on BBC last week. I

think anyone can see through it. Me thinks he does protest too much. In

the desperate attempts to muddy the waters in these issues. In holding a

Minister to account, let us remind ourselves of the requirements of the

Ministerial Code of conduct. It requires a minister to observe the

highest standards of propriety and regularity involving impartiality,

integrity and objectivity in relation to the stewardship of

public funds. It records reference to the seven principles of public

life. One of those is integrity and another of which is openness. It is

against those standards that I invite the House to judge the

Minister today. Mr Speaker, the member has drawn attention to the

Ministerial Code Of Conduct. Would you like to ask the member, is he

aware of the Members Code Of Conduct and that there is a requirement of

transparency and openness? Would he like to take this opportunity to

declare any interest that he might have had in terms of any of those

who were mentioned in the Spotlight programme?

THE ALL GASP Mr Speaker, I have no such interest

to declare, except, that when, as a practising barrister, I gave advice

to Mr Turkington, in respect of matters. Absolutely nothing to do

with this case or anything else. I thought when the First Minister rose

to his feet to talk about transparency that he might have been

going to tell us about the details of his relationship with various

people. Order!I have to see to the Democratic Unionist Party, have you

no shame? You would use your position and office, abuse it, to

press your own member who dared to stand in your way to stop to promote

a commercial interest -- in your way. To promote a commercial

interest of someone who was a political body. Did you win nothing

-- learn nothing from the �5 land deals and the various property

scandals of a few years ago? Israel are against such that you think you

can still above our -- is your add against such that you think you can

still abuse power? Point of order, would the member like to acquaint

the House with his own begging for funds from developers? I have not

begged for funds from anyone! I may have learnt order! The member's time

has gone. I may have been exposed to such tricks but I learnt no such

tricks. My integrity stands. I must insist. The members should take his

seat. I have -- they have no shame. Order! The member's time is up.

testing afternoon and the temperature did not drop there.

There were contributions from across the House, including Alex Attwood, a

one-time social Development Minister. First, Stewart Dickson

from the Alliance Party. Transparency is the most effective

public inoculation against corruption that any country can

have. What is at stake is the eyes of -- is, and eyes of the public,

the integrity of the House. We are alternate by these events and will

remain so unless, and until, there is an independent, full and

transparent investigation. The consequentialism of what are brought

to life should be -- the consequences must be faced. This

comes down to a fundamental issue. It is a fundamental issue of a few

relationship between one party and business and commercial and

development interests. That is what this debate is about. Let's look at

what the responsibility is. This is a quote, it is important but there

is public confidence in the individuals who are appointed.

Otherwise, there is a risk of repetition or damage. Special

advisers subject to general cause, including, and relation to, the

standards of relation of conduct and codes of ethics. It says, quote,

special advisers must not take part in the work of their party's

national organisation. Quote, must not take part in the work of their

party's national organisation. The question, Mr Speaker, is this, did

the act unilaterally? Was this man out of control or very much under

control, is not of the DFT administer, of who, in those ranks,

are those who are not sitting in those ranks? He was either out of

control, in which case he should be dismissed, or he was under the

control and direction of individuals inside this chamber, or otherwise,

and we need to know. During my time and the time of my predecessor,

there was never like it, in terms of interrogation of the affairs of the

Housing Executive, and that was reported to the committee and this

chamber. What does the DUP do? They rush to protect those who were

indicted. Indicted by the Housing Executive board and by independent

inquiry. The First Minister, as an Executive meeting, says, quote, this

decision around the Housing Executive, quote, this decision had

a sectarian background with a Nationalist minister and a national

gear. -- Nationalist gear. Does that not tell you all you need to know

about the view of some but not many in this chamber?

Nelson McCausland also got his chance to have his seat. He told the

House that he had always carried out his duties with integrity. His

special adviser, Stewart Brimstone, said this in a phone call that --

phone call. I want to pick up on a phone call made in 2000 oven. It

would have been wrong, I believe, and the miss of the special

adviser, if he had not sought to explain to a member of the board,

with whom he had contact and it was a short, eight minute conversation,

some understanding of the broader context of all this. Because,

already at that point, it was abundantly clear that wrongdoing was

not restricted to one contract or indeed to one Housing Executive

district. We know that. Because already, one year previously, under

the SDLP, it was becoming clear that there were concerns within the

Housing Executive at 32nd contract. -- about a second contract. You do

not need to be a genius to work out that if you have more than one

contract involved, and there were concerns about that, and if you have

more than one Housing Executive district involved, it starts to

become clear that this was something endemic, something systemic, within

the whole process in relation to contracts. And yet, when I spoke to

the chairman of the Housing Executive at a meeting, and when he

responded them subsequently in writing, he was assuring me that we

have robust systems in the Housing Executive. "We can stand over

things, we are robust." In fact, at an earlier meeting mentioned in the

report, the then acting chief Executive, Mr Stewart Cuddy, as

surely those at the meeting that the Housing Executive closely monitors

all of its contractors. -- ensured those at the meeting. The monitor

them so closely that the current chairman has to come before the

media and say, " well, actually, we have located a review and there may

be as much as �18 million of work that was overpaid."

When it came to closing speeches, Jim Allister was back in a speech,

followed by Sammy Wilson and the Ulster Unionist leader, Mike

Nesbitt. Esther Wilson made it clear the Minister has his party's

backing. Let's just look and see what members have said today. Mr

Durkin wants to make sure that we do not award a full investigation. Mr

Alistair wants to make sure we do not divert attention from the real

issues. Another wants fundamental questions answered. Mr Copeland

wants a full inquiry. Another wants an intervention -- who thinks an

intervention means that you believe him, wants to make sure that no

investigation is bullied. Mr McRae wants to make sure that we agree to

a full review. Well, what is the only motion which is on the order

paper? It fulfils all that criteria. The only motion is the motion and

the amendment down in the name of the DUP. Why have you put down a

petition? That is themselves. We put down a Petition of Concern two

reasons. First of all, we want a full inquiry. Secondly, we are not

going to allow this to be kicked around and some political game.

Petition of Concern, Mr Speaker, is a projection of politics, not a

political party. -- a projection. It was designed as a safeguard against

sectarian politics. Interest, -- interestingly, David Campbell, much

maligned by certain members of the House, was an offer of the Belfast

agreement while you went a order! The member... Order! The member must

be heard. Order. Mr Campbell, an architect and author of the Belfast

agreement, something that was signed while the DUP stood rattling the

grapes Dom aggregates and marching their trips up and down principal

avenue said it was a safeguard. -- rattling the gates and marching

their troops. Order. The member must be heard. Let us have remarks.

Campbell has written to the Secretary of State to say that since

the Assembly first sat, I believe the Petition of Concern has largely

worked as intended. It is a safeguard. However, the recent years

by the DUP, over a potential vote on the alleged actions of DST Minister

Nelson McCausland, is a blatant abuse of the procedure. The petition

is to prevent... Order. Point of order. The member has accused user

of being in a position where you have allowed an abuse of the rules

of this Assembly. I think that is a challenge to your role and position.

You need to make it clear that the Petition of Concern is in order and

legitimately has been placed before the House. Let me say at the outset

of this debate this afternoon and get it clear, the petition before us

was accurate and within standing orders of the size.

I was with Minister McCausland in Cardiff for two days. We all signed

up to a statement. Consequences for communities and individuals for

breaking the law. The same applies to the ministerial code. He should

stand aside. I asked the DUP, what comes first? The integrity of

politics of Stormont or the party? With the debate at an end, the only

thing left was to vote, three Bolton. First came the DUP

Amendment, followed by Jim Allister's and then the actual

motion itself. Gossipy Petition of Concern, it needed crossed amenities

support to succeed. -- because of the Petition of Concern.

amendment falls. The amendment falls. We now move to amendment

number two. All those in favour say. All those to the contrary noes.

The nose habit. -- noes habit. Can I ask members to please take their

seats and can I ask for the result to be read?

88 members voted, of which 54 voted yes, 61.4%. 32 nationalists sported

of which 100% voted yes. 32% of Unionists voted yes. The motion is

negative. A day of high drama at Stormont.

Stephen Walker is still with me. Put today into context for us. I think,

Mark, you and I have watched many debates and that is one of the most

robust debates I think we have seen in the past few months. Very frank

exchanges were heard tonight between politicians. Very tense exchanges.

Particularly the exchange between the First Minister and Jim Allister.

Lots of pressure being heaped on the DUP. Other parties demanding answers

from Nelson McCausland. The DUP coming back very robust, basically

saying that that nothing untoward has been done. Politics laid bare.

Particularly, the divisions within Unionism laid bare because somebody

heated exchanges between the UUP and the DUP. Do we know what happens

next? We are going into a summer recess.

Abel will draw breath for the moment but in terms of the story goes, the

next big thing will be the deliberations of the social

development committee. They have launched an inquiry and with the

summer recess, it is highly likely that we won't get answers to those

questions until Stormont comes back in the autumn.