David Ford
South Antrim · Alliance Party · Northern Ireland
“All I can say is that I remember officials coming back into the Department and saying, "You wouldn't have been very pleased with what Trevor or Stewart said at the Committee yesterday, Minister".”
“<BR /> <BR />When I listened to the start of the debate, I welcomed the comments that Mr McGuigan made, but, as Alex Attwood said so forcibly, even when he intervened and asked what had changed, there was an inability on the part of the Sinn Féin representative to explain anything other than to say that there is an election in six weeks'…”
“<BR /> <BR />No doubt, what we saw from in/out Ministers not so long ago and the failure of the outgoing First Minister to accept her role when she was Minister in DETI to deal with the issue has further added to that.”
“There is an inability in all that we face at the moment to recognise the public disgust at the behaviour of certain people in this place and, most particularly, in the Executive.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In his question to the Minister on that statement, Mr Paul Girvan suggested that some judges spin out cases inappropriately in their own financial interests.”
“Less than the full truth emerged and facts were eventually slowly dragged out from the bunker, sorry, from Stormont Castle. It is a classic example of why people have lost trust in the way that this place operates; it is a classic example of why the ministerial code needs to be enforced at least as rigorously as we enforce procedures agai…”
The complete record
Every one of 2,469 lines we hold for David Ford, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 50.
“I appreciate that you are the second one to say it, but I really think that we should give Philip McGuigan his name and not Daithí McKay's.”
“It will be interesting to see where the Minister of Justice sits today. I welcome the fact that, at last, we have some openness around this discussion.”
“Why is it that behaviour that would see Ministers sacked in any other legislature on these islands seems to be a recipe to keep people in place, or possibly promote them, here? <BR /> <BR />I congratulate Steven Agnew for the work that he has been doing and on splitting up the Executive — although that is not terribly hard to do these days.”
“All I can say is that I remember officials coming back into the Department and saying, "You wouldn't have been very pleased with what Trevor or Stewart said at the Committee yesterday, Minister". So, I do not think that that has been the case for my party, but when you get a party with three or four Members on a Committee of 11 working to defend their Minister, there are real questions as to how this operates when we discuss issues such as PAC and not policy decisions and when what the Minister has been doing is discussed in departmental Committees. Of course, fundamentally, we have seen the way in which the petition of concern has been deployed by a single party to protect a Minister in some difficulties. The notion that it would be acceptable to do that anywhere is just unacceptable.”
“<BR /> <BR />We do not just need a way of investigating matters; we need to ensure that we have robust procedures when investigations are carried out. The fact that, in this place, uniquely amongst legislatures on these islands, the Public Accounts Committee can be chaired by a member of an Executive party, and members of the PAC will use their efforts to defend Ministers of their parties, is a disgrace and would not be tolerated anywhere else.”
“Less than the full truth emerged and facts were eventually slowly dragged out from the bunker, sorry, from Stormont Castle. It is a classic example of why people have lost trust in the way that this place operates; it is a classic example of why the ministerial code needs to be enforced at least as rigorously as we enforce procedures against Members. <BR /> <BR />There may be a temptation for coalitions like the current one to do deals that show a lack of openness, but when we see how Committees are treated, for example, over budget procedures, completely undoing the way in which they were set out in the Good Friday Agreement, it seems that we have an action at the moment of two parties unwilling to move on at all.”
“<BR /> <BR />No doubt, what we saw from in/out Ministers not so long ago and the failure of the outgoing First Minister to accept her role when she was Minister in DETI to deal with the issue has further added to that. Yesterday, we in this House were asked to sign off on RHI regulations that have not been subject to proper scrutiny on a simple basis of trust, but that trust can exist only if there is accountability for the way that Ministers carry out their duties, not just that there is accountability for MLAs as Back-Benchers, but that there is accountability for Ministers. <BR /> <BR />The appointment of the Executive communications director, or whatever David Gordon is known as, is a classic example. Basic HR procedures were ignored.”
“There is an inability in all that we face at the moment to recognise the public disgust at the behaviour of certain people in this place and, most particularly, in the Executive. If we do not have openness and transparency about public dealings, we see a decrease in trust, and if that trust continues to decrease because there are no accountability mechanisms at work, it is not just a matter of concern; it turns to complete cynicism. That is, frankly, what we are witnessing amongst a very large number of our people. Sadly, we have seen all too many examples, and they have not all been confined to the DUP. We do not need to recite the litany of Red Sky to NAMA to the strategic investment fund to RHI. It just goes on and on.”
“<BR /> <BR />When I listened to the start of the debate, I welcomed the comments that Mr McGuigan made, but, as Alex Attwood said so forcibly, even when he intervened and asked what had changed, there was an inability on the part of the Sinn Féin representative to explain anything other than to say that there is an election in six weeks' time so we had better get on the right side of this and dump it all on the DUP. However, that party's behaviour has been in parallel with the DUP on many occasions. <BR /> <BR />I applaud my constituency colleague Pam Cameron for her ability to defend the indefensible party line consistently and show her loyalty, but I am not sure, from what I have seen so far, that it will go down very well on the doorsteps of South Antrim.”
“I congratulate Steven Agnew on somehow managing to come out of the lucky dip at this precise point to highlight an issue that, in fairness to him, he and his party have been highlighting for some time. Although I would like to claim a small share of the credit of the work that the Alliance Party has done, alongside the Green Party, on things such as the transparency of funding of political parties where there is still a major block in this Assembly for many others.”
“It is an irony that the last debate of this extremely short mandate turns out to be about the fundamental issues which have plagued the Assembly, not just for the last few weeks but for a considerable period of time, around openness, accountability and transparency of operations.”
“Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, I welcome the fact that Mr Girvan was big enough to come to the Assembly and apologise. It is a real pity that Members in this place speak on such serious matters without thinking of what they are saying in the first place.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In his question to the Minister on that statement, Mr Paul Girvan suggested that some judges spin out cases inappropriately in their own financial interests. When I was Minister of Justice, I certainly heard such allegations made against a small number of solicitors and barristers, but I believe it is an entirely inappropriate suggestion to make about any judge. I believe the statement by Mr Girvan has called into question the integrity of Sir Patrick Coghlin and other senior judges in this jurisdiction. I also believe it would be appropriate on this, the last day of the Assembly mandate, that you invite Mr Girvan back to the Chamber and give him the opportunity to withdraw his remarks.”
“I was going to ask the question that Mr Kennedy asked. There is a real issue about ensuring that Sir Patrick has the appropriate expertise — financial and engineering — to assist him as assessors in the inquiry. If the Minister could confirm that it will not be simply a matter of bringing somebody in for an hour or two but that he gets the full professional advice that he needs throughout, that would be helpful.”
“Given the way in which Belfast International Airport is in direct competition with Dublin for overseas routes, can the Minister indicate whether he has had any conversations with his colleague the Minister for Infrastructure on the development of public transport links and better roads in the Aldergrove area?”
“Building on Mrs Overend's supplementary question, there certainly have been questions raised in the past, including when the Assembly passed the Local Government Act, about the transparency of political donations, particularly in the context of planning decisions. Will the Minister agree that it is time that large donations were made public?”
“I appreciate the Member giving way. Does she agree that there is an issue between the values of the Good Friday Agreement, the architecture of the agreement and the way in which it was implemented, and that there were failings in the second and third elements?”
“Like John O'Dowd, I am proud of what I did as a Minister, but I am certainly not proud of the way that this Assembly has been treated by the Executive over the last eight months.”
“A lot needs to be done if we are to make a real difference. If we do not find some way of getting into serious talks when we come back here, we will not be delivering for the people of Northern Ireland.”
“We have had things like the watering down of the engagement of Committees in the budgetary process since last May. There is also the fundamental issue that, when we talk about Committees being there to advise and assist Ministers, if Ministers do not allow that to happen, they have lost us that in the current Executive as well. <BR /> <BR />Steven Agnew highlighted a number of the issues that we need to address. We need to address openness around party funding. We need to address some way of moving towards a more normal voluntary coalition with a suitably weighted majority. We need to do something to ensure that the petition of concern is triggered only on fundamental issues and not on every social reform that the largest party does not like. We need to do something to get away from the designations that divide us rather than unite us.”
“It was when all of us had the opportunity to be engaged in the run-up to Good Friday that we made some difference. <BR /> <BR />I do have to say to my friend Colin McGrath, who was not here in the early days, that it was not actually perfection in the days when the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP were the two largest parties. We only have to take Séamus Mallon's recent article as an example of what was not even covered by the Ulster Unionist Party in those days and the way that he felt treated. I can personally remember saying on one occasion that we would give a Programme for Government seven out of 10 if we were Scotland or Wales, but the Alliance group voted against it because it did not address the fundamental issues of overcoming divisions and building a united community in this society, which had been left out completely.”
“The fact that, in those early days, David Trimble and Seamus Mallon sat beside each other at Question Time on alternate sides of the Chamber was optics, but it was significant optics, and the watering down at St Andrews by the DUP and Sinn Féin and the two Governments took away a lot of that positive engagement and left us in difficulties there. <BR /> <BR />Of course, 14 months ago, we had the so-called Fresh Start, which Stevie Agnew credited to me as the false dawn document. In fairness, I only said that it was a false dawn for victims on the day, but, a year on, it is pretty clear that it is a false dawn for absolutely everybody. Again, that was a stitch-up between the two Governments and the two largest parties, rather than what is referenced here in the motion, an inclusive process that would engage all of us.”
“<BR /> <BR />However, there is absolutely no doubt that, since that time, the eyes have been taken off the ball of some of the fundamental issues. We are going to need some significant reforms if we are to restore public trust in the ability of the Assembly and the Executive to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. Part of that problem is because of the watering down of the fundamental principles of the Good Friday Agreement that we have seen on a number of occasions over the last 17 years. For example, the St Andrews Agreement removed the issue of the First Minister and deputy First Minister being elected jointly. It may only have been optics, but it was significant optics that they were seen to have the confidence of the House.”
“Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I will still wish you well for the future. <BR /> <BR />There is a certain irony that, almost as we approach the end of this Assembly term, we are debating the issue of the fundamental principles of the Good Friday Agreement, the values and principles that are supposed to underpin everything that we do but which have been sadly lacking for some time. I think that there are still a dozen of us, including three or four who are in the Chamber at the moment, who were here in September 1998 when we first came into this place and remember that as a time of hope, a time of optimism and a time of belief that things were really changing. It was a time when we were actually looking at three sets of relationships that defined the people of Northern Ireland and these islands and how we managed together.”
“I am grateful to Mr Bell for giving way again. Just to clarify, on the day that I was given sight of the documentation, when I then formally requested copies, it was agreed that I would get copies a couple of weeks later.”
“I appreciate the Member giving way. He has announced on two occasions that he sought ministerial papers. Members may recall that there was an aside in the debate on 19 December about a possible involvement of the Department of Justice. I was given sight of the papers that day before the debate took place, because an issue had appeared in one of the Sunday papers. I was also given copies of all relevant papers relating to my time as Minister. It is certainly my understanding of normal procedures that Ministers should be given copies, with the names of junior officials and so on suitably redacted. Nonetheless, I now have copies of everything relevant in my possession.”
“If the Minister tells us that no costs are incurred by her decision, perhaps she could tell us what savings have been forgone.”
“I appreciate the Member giving way. What she has actually said in all the points that she has highlighted so far is that the terms of reference under which an inquiry is set up could entirely deal with all the bogus objections that have been raised to it. Also, very specifically, in an inquiry under the Inquiries Act, it would not be for Ministers to withhold information; the information would be released by the judge who chairs the inquiry.”
“I appreciate the Member giving way. Does she agree with me that, whilst there is clearly a cost to Health and Justice, there are very significant issues such as those highlighted by Mr Beattie about education, for example, there is clearly a role for the Department for Communities and it is not simply a matter of solely two Departments dealing with it?”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Whilst accepting the ruling that you have just given, the very fact that you had to give the ruling in the way that you gave it is a clear indication of an inadequacy in the Standing Orders of this House or, indeed, in the observation of conventions, whether or not they are covered by Standing Orders. Will you please agree to raise it with the Speaker in the hope that this matter may be referred to officials, who can give us some better advice should this House be reconvened after 2 March?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Ms Sugden started speaking as an independent Member and then chose to speak as Minister. She referred to events in the Department whilst I was Minister of Justice and declined to take an intervention. I want to put it on the record that I am absolutely content, having had a discussion with the permanent secretary this morning, that any papers involving my time in the Department of Justice should be released to a judicial-led public inquiry at the earliest possible time.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I am sure that he will appreciate that not just Members from North Antrim but Members from South Antrim, East Antrim and East Londonderry will be aware of that.”
“I beg to introduce the Abortion (Fatal Foetal Abnormality) Bill [NIA 03/16-21], which is a Bill to make provision to decriminalise medical termination of a pregnancy in those circumstances where the foetus is diagnosed with a fatal abnormality.”
“I thank the Minister for his stand-in role, at the meeting and today. I must say that I was slightly disappointed to see so much of a focus on recycling given that I thought that we had got slightly higher up the waste pyramid and were looking more at reduce and reuse. In relation to the Minister's reference to UN sustainable development goal 13 on climate change, is there any chance of us hearing that the Executive will introduce a climate change Bill by next week, which is the first anniversary of the Assembly calling for it?”
“I thank the Minister for her statement. I notice that in three separate paragraphs she refers to the potential implications flowing from the EU referendum in the UK. Given that we are now four months on from that referendum and given the points that she has just made in response to Mr Irwin about an integrated agri-food business across this island, is it not time that we had a bit more detail rather than merely being told that Ministers have discussed the issue? Should the Council not be meeting before next March to deal with these urgent issues on behalf of farmers North and South?”
“On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Will you explain how, when a Member quotes Standing Orders at you, you can say that it is not a point of order? It clearly is a point of order under any possible terms.”
“<BR /> <BR />All of that suggests that the motion should be supported, and there is a real need to see the Executive providing us with a lead.”
“All those people run the risk of suffering in a way that would be just as significant as the loss of direct subsidy, if they cannot trade in the way that they have been used to. <BR /> <BR />Whilst there is some potential for the development of new processing facilities in a way that would meet the needs of producers on both sides of the border, all of that is at an economic cost. It is the opportunity cost of failing to maximise the use of the facilities that already exist at the expense of buying others. The potential difficulties in cross-border trade could increase the monopoly powers of some who buy the produce of farmers. <BR /> <BR />There is also the wider threat of access to EU markets. People may moan all they like about regulations, but, if we are to export, we need to see people adhering to the current level of regulation.”
“The third threat we face concerns cross-border trade. It is simply not realised how integrated food production has become on this island over the last 40 years. We are a long way from the economic war that de Valera tried to wage in the 1930s, pretending that Ireland could be entirely sufficient without dealing with the UK. Every week, thousands of pigs come north for processing. Virtually every week, thousands of cattle go south. At this time of the year, tens of thousands of sheep go south. Millions of litres of milk go north and south between production and processing. All of those potentially face major difficulties with the likelihood of a hard border being imposed in the event of a hard Brexit.”
“A massive number of jobs will be affected, whether in the small-scale hardware-type businesses that supply farmers and cater for their day-to-day needs or in the major, in many cases multinational, food processors. We all know about the concept of an economic multiplier in jobs being provided, but what we do not always acknowledge is that the multiplier can go downwards as well as upwards. If farming goes down, there will be a severe threat to businesses in our high streets, small local agribusinesses in rural areas and to some significant employers of large numbers of people.”
“All the evidence is that the UK Government are likely to seek to reduce the funding that they provide to agriculture, so there is a severe likelihood that, after 2020, we will receive something less than 10% of something less than £350 million. If there is any political support for agriculture in the Conservative Government, it certainly does not go to the grass-based farming of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales and the less-favoured areas of England; it is entirely concentrated on the arable farmers of southern and eastern England. There is a significant threat. <BR /> <BR />Of course, there are other issues. It is not just about farming; there are key issues with the other jobs that farmers provide either upstream or downstream.”
“It does not state the proportion of the UK funding that we receive, although Mr McGlone, in proposing the motion, made the point, which Mr McKee repeated, that Northern Ireland gets 10% of UK funding. That is the first potential threat to Northern Ireland agriculture: if the Treasury were to operate on a start-afresh basis and our funding was allocated on the basis of the Barnett formula, we would be talking about 2·9% and not 10%. <BR /> <BR />We have the much trumpeted guarantee of the equivalent of EU funding levels until 2020, which, given that it will take until 2019 at the earliest for the UK to leave the EU, is not much of a long-term guarantee.”
“I should probably start by declaring an interest, as my household is a beneficiary of EU funding. <BR /> <BR />I welcome this motion from the two colleague parties of Opposition. I am not sure whether it is an indication that on Opposition days we can expect motions to become longer and longer as both parties get every point they want into them. The motion is, nonetheless, a comprehensive and appropriate one that I will support, although it might have been improved if an amendment that I had suggested, which referred to the potential threats to trade, had been included. <BR /> <BR />The motion correctly states the size of EU funding to Northern Ireland agriculture as £350 million a year.”
“I am grateful to Mr Poots for giving way. I wonder if he could give us any shred of evidence on which to base the statement that he has just made.”
“I also thank the Minister for her statement. I particularly welcome her references to the commitment of the Minister of Health to work closely with her on these issues, something that was not always the case in the relatively recent past. Will the scope of the review that she has announced today include the specific issue of the potential establishment of a secure psychiatric facility, or will it deal solely with existing prison facilities?”
“As I remember questioning the Minister's predecessor Bairbre de Brún on funding for mental health services about 14 or 15 years ago, it is rather sad that Mr Durkan had to ask a question today to illustrate the problem. Given that the Minister has referred a few times to the Bamford review, can she give us any information on the commencement of the Mental Capacity Act?”
“Has the Minister been given any indication by the Minister of Finance that Prison Service grades will be exempt from normal Civil Service pay policy this year?”
“I appreciate the Member giving way. Of course the British Government have responsibilities for article 2, but it is also clear, given that his party was party to the Fresh Start Agreement, so-called, and the Stormont House Agreement, that that work was to be done by the Executive and then funded by the British Government.”
“The clear point is that, if we are to recognise responsibilities, we must ensure that the Executive and, subsequently, the UK Government act —”
“I understand the points made by the Ulster Unionist Party about the hierarchy of victims, but, at the moment, there are people whose inquests could proceed if the money were released, and they are being let down by the system because of the failure to agree on that money. That is why it is simply not realistic to blame others.”