Stephen Farry
North Down · Alliance Party · Northern Ireland
“Speaking for a party that has a longer pedigree in advocating a public inquiry than both the DUP and Sinn Féin, I nonetheless welcome this announcement, despite the torturous path that we have had and, indeed, the missed opportunities.”
“The first was a reform of the petition of concern to take it back to the original intent when it was designed in 1998. It was clear at that stage that Arlene Foster banged the table and said, "No, never. We are not doing that. That is a way whereby we are going to have to fold on equal marriage: it's not happening".”
“<BR /> <BR />The main points that I make concern the substance of the order. There are probably three aspects that the Minister needs to address properly before the Assembly, and they really relate to what other options he has.”
“That raises the question of why they want to go as far as 2022, especially when I am not sure — I would welcome any clarification to the contrary on it — that there has been formal Executive approval of this.”
“<BR /> <BR />There are three major substantive issues that I do not believe have been properly aired on this: VAT; European Commission infraction proceedings; and, most important, the opportunity foregone to revisit the classification of Northern Ireland Water and the ability, through a separate water charge, to allow it to borrow commerc…”
“While my party was supportive of the Good Friday Agreement back in 1998, at that time, we expressed some reservations around the very detailed nature of the proposals and how those could, in due course, destabilise Northern Ireland and prevent us from realising our full potential. We have been very much vindicated in that analysis.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,504 lines we hold for Stephen Farry, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 27 of 51.
“Leaving that aside, this has exposed some wider problems around the rule of law and the continued activity of paramilitary organisations within our society. That has to be addressed in one way or another. <BR /> <BR />There are probably three or four things that we need to turn our minds to. First, we have a range of different definitions as to what is the accepted bar in terms of an end to paramilitary activity, full adherence to peaceful and democratic means and support for the rule of law. We have the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, which says one thing, and the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which says a different thing. We have the Pledge of Office, which applies to Ministers but does not relate them to the activities of any associated organisations. We need to standardise that and tidy it up to the highest possible standards.”
“The party leader was correct — I have just explained it. <BR /> <BR />Secondly, we should remind Mr Nesbitt that we also took charges against the Ulster Unionist Party and the DUP around some of their antics in relation to associations with the Drumcree protests in 1997 and how that undermined the integrity of the talks as well. I am rather afraid that it is not just allegations against parties connected to paramilitaries: there are others who have been in breach of their duties around the Mitchell principles and the subsequent principles that we are guided by. <BR /> <BR />We need to reflect much further on the basis of what has occurred over the summer months. Clearly, we have one particular case that may or may not lead to action in due course, based on the investigation.”
“I am rather surprised that Mr Nesbitt is worried about who is in the Executive at all, given that he has just walked out of it. Leaving that aside — obviously, one Minister was determined through the d'Hondt system and the other was determined through the votes of this House on a cross-community basis. Everyone in this House is here due to a mandate from the public. So there you go; that is the answer to that question.”
“Indeed, we saw Sinn Féin and the UDP temporarily suspended from those talks. <BR /> <BR />I will give way to the Member.”
“If there is clear, compelling evidence that there is an organisational structure, or that there is a link between the political party and any structure involved in the murder, the Alliance Party will not be wanting in doing its duty under its responsibilities under the Northern Ireland Act and in ensuring that we have integrity in these institutions. We have history in this because we brought allegations and charges against various parties during the multi-party talks leading up to the Good Friday Agreement.”
“Let me be very clear. Had the Member listened to what I said, he would have heard that the Chief Constable said that, in his assessment, members of the IRA were involved in that murder. That is on the public record from the police. Mr Hussey went on to talk about a brigade-level structure existing in the IRA. That may or may not be true, but one thing that I can say with certainty is that Mr Hussey has not been briefed by anyone in a position of authority who has conclusively said that to him. That is speculation, and that is why I am warning that we should be extremely cautious in what we say at this stage. <BR /> <BR />Let me be very clear.”
“A lot that could and perhaps should be said lies outside the immediate context and content of the motion. It is important to stress that we are still in the context of a live police investigation. What we have is an assessment from the police of the state of that investigation. That is a useful set of comments, but it opens up a whole layer of other questions that, quite rightly, MLAs and the wider public want to see resolved as soon as possible. However, we need to be very cautious about drawing firm conclusions. I am afraid that Mr Hussey fell into that trap in the previous speech. The assessment — it is important that we read it very carefully — talking about members of the IRA potentially being involved in that murder —”
“We are content to support the motion. Obviously, it is important that we condemn the murders and call for support for the investigation, but of course they are only part of a much wider political crisis that is facing us.”
“Does the Member concur with the remarks of the current MP for South Antrim, who suggested that this was still very much a case of waiting to see how things develop?”
“<BR /> <BR />The other point that is worth making is that, while the UK Government are defaulting, part of the reason why we are hamstrung in getting on with implementing the measure to deal with the past is that we are not in a position to implement Stormont House in full, because that is itself caught up in the impasse on welfare, which results from his party, and, indeed, Sinn Féin, welshing on the deal that was struck in December at Stormont Castle.”
“<BR /> <BR />The second point to make is that Mr Attwood is getting very exercised about the British Government doing a U-turn around the funds in Stormont House. My party leader is angry, and I am angry. I think that a lot of people have every right to be angry. The fact that they are defaulting on that is important; however, it is not germane to the discussion today as to whether we balance our books.”
“That is an interesting way of introducing the intervention. I am grateful to the Member for giving way. Before moving on to the issue of dealing with the past, if we are talking about what happens behind closed doors, issues of consistency and principled stances on budgets, the Minister of the SDLP, in January — not in November, as people tried to correct the record to say, when I made this point back in Second Stage — came to me and David Ford and asked us what our party was doing on the Budget when the Executive, at the very first stage, was about to take a decision on the final Budget facing us, saying that they were thinking of abstaining. When they found out that my party was going to vote against, the SDLP voted against. That is what happened behind closed doors. There is the point in terms of consistency.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. For her information, there is a paper currently before the Executive that would introduce a stronger version of regulation of zero-hours contracts than is available in any other part of these islands. For different reasons, a certain political party has not seen fit to authorise that paper to progress to the next level.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. There may be something in what he has said, but surely that is what the recent general election was fought on at a UK-wide level. The people of the UK, though not Northern Ireland necessarily, voted for the Conservative Party, which had a manifesto to do x, y and z. We object to all of that, but how is that going to be changed over the next four or five years?”
“So much of the Budget pressure that we face is based on what has happened through the non-implementation of the Stormont House Agreement. That is not at the expense of wider discussions that we have to engage in about the potential for more fiscal devolution on the margins, what we do on more cooperation on a North/South basis, what we do about arguing over public spending at a UK-wide level with Scotland, Wales and the north of England, what we do about arguing about welfare reform, what we do locally about trying to tackle the cost of a divided society and what we do locally about trying to tackle our problems of lack of economic activity. All those discussions have to take place, but we will be in a far better position to do that if we pass a Budget, implement the Stormont House Agreement and get over this hurdle on welfare.”
“I do not think that there is a political party in here that genuinely wants to see people having a lifetime on welfare, but, unless we get our priorities straight and have a balanced approach between, on the one hand, a proper, effective welfare system, including one with local modalities and flexibilities, and, on the other hand, putting sufficient resources into our public services, we will end up in a situation in which all that we do is fund people to stay on welfare. That is not in people's individual interests, and it is not in the interests of our economy and our society. It is in that context that we have to pass the Budget. <BR /> <BR />We have to conclude our discussions on welfare and get another Bill back in the Assembly — otherwise the power will be taken out of our hands — and we have to deliver the Stormont House Agreement.”
“I am in a situation in which I am limited in what I do with training and employment programmes. I am scratching around to find funds to allow European social fund projects to proceed. There are cutbacks to our colleges and universities. It is all about giving people life opportunities. We are keeping people in poverty through the focus on welfare payments, and, at the same time, we are taking away, rung by rung, the ladder that helps people to escape from poverty.”
“<BR /> <BR />It frustrates me no end when people talk about "What we want to do for the vulnerable" and how it is all about welfare. It is not all about welfare; it is about ensuring that we deliver properly funded public services on which vulnerable people depend disproportionately. We see classic examples in cutbacks in public health, and we know how public health issues create intergenerational problems through lack of opportunity. We are cutting back early years, and, indeed, there was a petition about that in the past couple of days. It is the most crucial intervention in the education system and will transform intergenerational poverty and lack of educational opportunities. This is utterly counterproductive.”
“<BR /> <BR />I have to say to Ms Boyle, who talks about what is happening in her constituency in Strabane with the problem of unemployment, that the approach taken to date by the two nationalist parties and the Greens in terms of Budget uncertainty and Budget chaos is directly impacting on our ability to help people who are unemployed. At the moment, I am scaling back what I do in my Department in relation to youth employment schemes because it is, fundamentally, discretionary spend. I do not know whether, if I continue with that spending, my Department will be able to live within the control total at the end of the year because I have other formal, statutory commitments to meet. Already, that is one further example of where Budget cuts and Budget uncertainty are directly hitting the vulnerable.”
“What it means, for now, is that we pass this Budget Bill and we very quickly move to resolving whatever is holding back the implementation of the Stormont Castle and Stormont House agreements in relation to welfare. I am more than happy that we try to be creative in that regard, because maybe there are areas where we can see what other things can be done to help people who will suffer the welfare cuts in Northern Ireland. That may well be resourcing the strategy on economic inactivity, for example, which is helping people who are on welfare but doing it through a locally based approach that has the democratic approval of the Executive and the support of political parties across the board. Through those types of schemes, we are helping people who are on welfare.”
“However, in line with what the majority of people in Northern Ireland want today, Northern Ireland remains part of the UK and that means that we are subject to the decisions of the UK-wide Government. They have authority over a number of issues, while we have authority over a different set of issues. The UK Government have authority over issues regarding taxation and public spending at a high level. That is where our money comes from, so we have a duty to engage with that. We can argue along with our Scottish and Welsh counterparts in due course over how we can get a better settlement for Northern Ireland, but, while we are engaged in that process, we have to be sure that we live within our means. <BR /> <BR />In closing, let me be very clear about what that means.”
“I am more than happy to engage in that myself, but where the principle of consent comes into play is when you question the legitimacy of the UK Government in taking decisions on behalf of Northern Ireland. If you cross the line from criticism of policies to saying that the UK Government have no right to dictate policies for the UK as a whole, in that context, you are breaching your commitments under the Good Friday Agreement to respect the principle of consent. You are perfectly entitled to argue for a different configuration or to argue for a move towards a united Ireland. Indeed, I am more than happy to listen to those arguments, and, over time, the balance of those arguments may change.”
“The longer we leave the resolution of the issues, the more difficult it will be for individual Departments and for the block as a whole to have a balanced situation before the end of the year. <BR /> <BR />Let me also clarify something. Last time I spoke on the Bill, at Second Stage, there was some confusion when I made a point about the implications of the approach taken by a number of parties to the principle of consent which, as people appreciate, is a fundamental cornerstone of the Good Friday Agreement. I fully accept that people will want to query, question and criticise quite vociferously the policies that emanate from UK Governments.”
“We had Stormont House, and we had Stormont Castle, which was defaulted on by a number of parties. We have been down that line, so we need to press on and get the issues resolved. <BR /> <BR />The impact of the financial uncertainty means that Departments may face in-year cuts of a certain nature. We do not yet know. That will have to be passed on, and it creates more pain in itself. Even the uncertainty creates problems. Some Departments are being responsible and trying to hold back on spending commitments because they do not know how they will balance the books during the year; others are pressing on regardless. There is a certain unfairness in the system at the very least.”
“The fundamental question that people in Northern Ireland want answered today is whether people are prepared to stand up, face up to their responsibilities and balance the books. We must have certainty about what our budgets will be for the forthcoming year, so that people can get on with the delivery of services, albeit, perhaps, curtailed services in the light of a very tight public spending situation. That is better than the continued drift that we see and the uncertainty that has a real impact on the ground. <BR /> <BR />It is important to spell it out that we do not have the luxury of hanging around for endless rounds of talks. I get particularly frustrated with the SDLP saying, "All we require is that people sit around the table and talk this through". We have been doing that for months, if not years.”
“None of that takes away from the reality that we receive a block grant from Westminster; it may well be a flawed block grant, but that is the way we receive our resources. We have a duty to live within the budget that is allocated to us. We can raise more revenue on the margins if we wish to do so, but, by and large, that is the way that we balance our books in Northern Ireland.”
“Even if we go down what, for now, is a fairly fanciful journey and talk about the notion that the solution to all of this is that Northern Ireland, somehow, takes on full fiscal devolution and that, by implication, we somehow become financially self-sufficient, which is, to my mind, completely unrealistic in the short to medium term and, even potentially, in the long term, but we will see how the long term goes, and even if you are prepared to accept that that is a viable alternative pathway, sitting where we are today, it will still take legislation to go through Westminster to devolve those powers to the Assembly for us to do our own balancing of the books in line with our own responsibilities.”
“Again, those will have a disproportionate impact on our society in Northern Ireland, and it is right, through the appropriate forums, that our public representatives, including MPs in Westminster but also the Assembly itself, make their views on those issues known very clearly.”
“Decisions have been taken, through the structures, on budget policy, and we now have to follow that through. <BR /> <BR />In a similar vein, we hear a lot of other red herrings. I am not dismissing the importance of the issues in calling them red herrings, but they are not directly relevant to the responsibilities that we have as an Assembly today. I accept that people have concerns about the approach that has been taken at a UK-wide level on public spending and what is, in effect, an austerity programme from the UK Government. Of course, they have a duty to balance their books on public spending, but there is a legitimate debate over how fast and at what rate that should occur, and people can have their own different viewpoints on that issue. <BR /> <BR />We are also right to make points about the concerns over future welfare reforms.”
“<BR /> <BR />That is how we end up in the situation today, accepting that we have to ensure that money is flowing through Departments while, at the same time, we preserve our deep concerns over the lack of strategic thinking around a number of aspects of the Budget, including an unwillingness to consider some fair forms of revenue raising and the fact that we are not adequately addressing the costs of a divided society, and we saw today a very clear vindication of what we have been saying about the inefficiency, not least in terms of the education system from a multitude of schools. There are clearly major inefficiencies within our economy and within our public finances that have to be addressed, but those are discussions for another day.”
“That was a discussion on budget policy, and, at that stage, we could make the credible point that an alternative Budget could have been formulated by the Executive in the event that that Budget resolution had not been democratically passed by the Assembly. However, once we passed that point and the Budget resolution was adopted by the Assembly, it then falls on everyone else to follow through, to respect the vote that was taken and to put in place the Supply resolution in relation to the first Budget Bill, and then to follow through, as we are doing in June of this year, with the Supply resolution and, today, the Final Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill.”
“<BR /> <BR />I will take a moment to explain the logic of why Alliance feels that voting in favour of the Budget is the responsible thing to do at this stage, and that is not to diminish the fact that, in our analysis, there are flaws in the process to date. However, it is important that we draw a distinction between, on the one hand, what is budget policy for Northern Ireland and what is, on the other hand, the voting of Supply and then giving the legal authority to Departments to spend the Supply that has been voted on previously by the Assembly. We had our differences in the Executive over the Budget that was set for the incoming year, and that is a matter of public record. Indeed, my colleagues in the party voted against that when it came to the Floor of the Assembly.”
“I was concerned somewhat that, at Second Reading, the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP chose to abstain on the Budget and not to live up to their responsibilities, not least as members of the Executive, with all of the implications of what could have happened if others had not put the Budget through on the day in question. We wait to hear from either party exactly what they are planning to do today, though I heard from the SDLP that — it was Mr Attwood who said the last time round — it was going to let the Second Stage proceed, as it turned out through abstention, but it was planning to vote against the Budget at Final Stage. I did not understand the logic of abstaining, but I find the logic of voting against it at Final Stage, having already abstained, to be utterly bizarre. We will see in due course what is to follow.”
“The actions of those parties, as well as the Green Party, over the past number of weeks have been directly responsible for plunging Northern Ireland into the current uncertainty, which may lead to a financial catastrophe. That is not to forget that there are wider structural problems in our economy and that wider political mistakes have been made over the past number of years, but, as we stand today, those are the choices that are in front of us, and it is within that framework that, today, we have to make decisions on the way forward. <BR /> <BR />In that respect, we wait to hear exactly how some other parties are going to vote. I understand that Sinn Féin has said that it will be supporting the Budget. I welcome that in so far as it goes. However, there is a lot more work to be done.”
“Take a very deep breath, sit back and reflect upon the choices, or lack of choices, that we are making here in Northern Ireland and the implications that may well flow from those if there is not to be a real consequence to our society at a political level, in terms of the institutions; at an economic level, in terms of what we are trying to do to transform our economy; and, indeed, at a societal level. <BR /> <BR />I have heard a lot of talk about leadership, over the past number of days. In particular, we hear the parties that are most notably blocking progress on the Stormont House Agreement talk about the need for fresh leadership and the need for people to stand up and be counted.”
“It is a choice between proceeding with this Budget, albeit one that is flawed and which still contains a number of issues that we have to resolve, and, on the other hand, a complete and utter financial catastrophe. <BR /> <BR />We should take some note of what is happening elsewhere in Europe this week. I think there is a certain poignancy in the fact that we are having our discussions this week, at the same time as Greece is literally falling apart financially, with major repercussions for the future of its economy and society and knock-on implications elsewhere in the European Union.”
“At the outset, may I say that the Alliance Party will be supporting the Final Stage of the Budget this afternoon, or this evening. In doing so, we are clear that it does not, in itself, resolve any of the financial or political issues that are facing us, but, at the very least, although in some respects it may be a somewhat faint prospect, it keeps hope alive. By contrast, those voting against the resolution — if anyone is contemplating doing so — will be, through their actions, voting for the imposition of cuts, in-year, in the middle of the summer, to the extent of at least £2 billion on top of everything else that we have had to bear over the past number of months. <BR /> <BR />The choice that we are faced with today is not between proceeding with this Budget and some other credible, plausible alternative.”
“If we invest money in match funding, we get the leverage of drawing down a 40% contribution from the European Union. So we are almost getting a double hit if we spend money on match funding rather than the pathways allowance. However, organisations have the option to pay an allowance out of the funding that they receive under the European social fund. We are happy to work with any organisations, including Include Youth, with whom we had a meeting last week in this regard, on finding a means for them to pay that resource from their existing allocation. We will work with them to revise their targets in line with that. Across the piece, that is the best way in which we can maximise a scarce budget to have the greatest impact on as many young people as possible.”
“We have considerable pressures on what we are doing to support young people not in education, employment and training. As the Assembly will know, we had a dedicated funding stream that expired in March 2015. It has not been renewed by the Executive, so we are scratching around — I use that term deliberately — to find what money we can to make the biggest impact for young people not in education, employment and training, particularly in addition to the European social fund (ESF). <BR /> <BR />We have a choice to make between what we do on the delivery of match funding, on which there is huge pressure across all Departments, and the payment of the pathways allowance. If my Department pays the pathways allowance directly, that comes at the opportunity cost of match funding.”
“That will be shaped by employers and other experts. That is all radical change in the system. Of course, it will make a difference only if we can deliver it. <BR /> <BR />We have recognised that we will be continuing financial assistance directly to young people. As the Member will appreciate, that exists in the Training for Success system. Obviously, those enrolled in apprenticeships receive a wage in connection with that, which is a different concept. Young people going through the employed route, which is almost like a traineeship in the forthcoming system, will receive a wage, and those going through the non-employed route will receive an allowance that is at least the same amount that they currently receive. <BR /> <BR />The pathways EMA is a different issue. I will give a foretaste of what I will say to the Committee tomorrow.”
“First, let me address the point about this not being just another initiative. This is a new system of learning. It is not about a like-for-like replacement of programmes; it is about a systematic approach to training at level 2. We are not simply replacing Training for Success apprenticeships at level 2 with this provision; it covers a much wider range of areas. For example, it will cover a much wider age group, including, for the first time, young people who are in work but are trapped in low-paid jobs and do not have the tools and skills to find new employment opportunities for themselves. We are talking about a fresh baccalaureate-style qualification, a very broad-based qualification that includes technical and employability skills alongside core qualifications, particularly in maths and English.”
“We need to treat people as individuals who have particular challenges and barriers and different aspirations. We are also putting a much stronger focus on careers advice, both at entry level and when they are about to leave the system, to make sure that we properly signpost individuals to the most lucrative opportunities for them, whether it is employment or further training opportunities.”
“I thank the Member for his comments. I know that he and Pat are often a double team, in that they come at issues from the same angle. He is right to stress that this is about ensuring that no young person is left behind. If we are to maximise our potential as an economy and a society, we need to make sure that we utilise everyone's talents. Everyone has the ability to make a contribution, and the challenge for us, as a Government, is to ensure that we have the systems in place that will draw out everyone's talents to the full. <BR /> <BR />I will focus a lot on the workplace buddy system and the pastoral care to be provided by the off-the-job training providers. This is about ensuring that we train people as individuals and do not simply see them as yet another number going through a system.”
“In that way, there will be economies of scale, and we will fully maximise the potential for synergy between the two strategies and systems.”
“Young people will exit youth training into full-time employment or go back into mainstream education or other forms of training, but we see this as a means for young people to gain a foothold from which they can move into a formal apprenticeship. <BR /> <BR />Given the commonality across the two strategies, it is intended that a lot of the structures will be common to both strategies. There will be a single strategic advisory forum. There will be a common set of sectoral partnerships, where appropriate, and there may be some sectoral partnerships that are only for apprenticeships and only for youth training, depending on whether there is a critical mass of skill pressures at higher levels or at level 2. The central service will also be common across both strategies.”
“I thank the Member for her comments. She is right to identify the fact that the new system of youth training should be reviewed almost as the sister strategy of our apprenticeship strategy. They share a new approach to vocational training in Northern Ireland and a commitment to investing in professional and technical skills from level 2 right through to level 8. In the outgoing system across apprenticeships and youth training, we have an offer that covers level 2 and level 3. It tends to stop at level 3. We know that, as a society, we have much more pressure on higher-level skills as a whole if we are to grow our economy and take full advantage of the opportunities that lie ahead. <BR /> <BR />We want the system of youth training to be part of a progression route that may lead into apprenticeships. There may be other pathways.”
“We will have a detailed discussion on that tomorrow in Committee. We face some challenges, but I will bring solutions to the attention of the Committee tomorrow. As a society, we have a challenge to ensure that we are sufficiently resourcing all the skills profile that we need to invest in every young person. <BR /> <BR />We will also continue with the provision of mainstream FE to work with young people, particularly those who are on the margins of getting into the system. We can do dedicated work to give them a real incentive to get into the new system, which should offer a range of new opportunities for young people to progress into work.”
“That is a major challenge for us as a society. The programme is open to those individuals. We should recognise, however, that, through our school system, we are seeing some improvement in the figures for level 2 qualifications. The Department of Education is getting things right on an incremental basis in that regard, but, nonetheless, we have a large pool of young people for whom the school system is not delivering for a host of reasons. Within that, there will be a large cohort of people who have, at the very least, achieved level 1, and they can move into the new level 2 offer straight away. The Member and Ms McGahan's focus has been on the young people who do not yet have a level 1, and that is where what can be delivered through the European social fund is so important.”
“I thank the Member for his comments and I reflect on the contribution that a very strong team has made on the delivery of this strategy over the past number of months. The Member is right to focus first on the importance of data collection, monitoring and evaluation. It is fair to say that there can be legitimate criticisms of some of the outgoing programmes in that regard; we have not had sufficiently strong results in progression into work or proper monitoring of where people are going as leavers on the far side of programmes. <BR /> <BR />I appreciate that the bulk of the Member's comments have been about the entry point to the new system and how we can facilitate people in that regard. It is important to recognise that we have a large pool of people who are leaving school without a level 2 qualification.”
“Work will continue through the existing channels, whether through the FE sector or the community and voluntary sector, which deliver a lot of projects at level 1 and also, when we talk about the disability sector, at level 2. We will work with them to ensure that we have strong progression routes. The Member will appreciate that we will be talking in more detail about the European social fund (ESF) at the Committee meeting tomorrow.”