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 2 of 50.
“<BR /> <BR />Mr Frew may talk about the costs and how far £150 million would go, but the DOJ knew at the time of Fresh Start that £150 million would not be adequate for all that was needed under legacy. As long as the Executive fail to take any steps whatsoever, they have no prospect of getting any more money released from the Treasury. We certainly need some initial action from the Executive. At that point, money may be forthcoming from the Treasury, but unless we have something rational being done here, we will not get the opportunity to ask the Treasury to pay what it should be paying.”
“<BR /> <BR />We all know that there is a non-aggression pact in the Chamber and, indeed, other places between Sinn Féin and the DUP, but it is carrying that to extremes for either party to suggest that the fault for the blockage at the present time lies anywhere other than with the DUP. If the First Minister had not blocked progress on the initial package to start the inquest process, we could have got the process under way and delivered something for some families. Indeed, the DUP could then have said to Sinn Féin, "We have delivered something. Now you start delivering on your side". However, by digging her heels in, the First Minister has guaranteed that nothing at all will happen.”
“The British Government may or may not be hiding behind that, but it is absolute nonsense to suggest that the veto at this stage lies anywhere other than with the First Minister. <BR /> <BR />Mr Kearney's rant blaming everything on the British Government was perhaps inevitable coming from a Sinn Féin spokesman, but maybe we should let him into a secret: in April 2010, justice was devolved to the Assembly. It is a Minister of Justice and the Executive in Northern Ireland who bear responsibility for moving things forward. Yes, the funding is supposed to come from the Treasury, but the rant on what the British Government should be doing rather suggests that Mr Kearney and possibly other Members from Sinn Féin do not believe in the devolution of justice at all.”
“You downgraded Brian Kerr, but we will not worry about that. It is absolutely clear that the work being done to review the possibility of progress in all outstanding inquests — a lot of good work has been done to move things forward by the judiciary, including by a number of judges who have taken responsibility for inquests, the Courts and Tribunals Service and policy staff in DOJ — has been let down by the failure of the Executive to agree any way forward. <BR /> <BR />The First Minister and the deputy First Minister had a paper from me as Minister of Justice before the election that they would not table at the Executive. They then would not enable me to take an urgent decision. It is absolutely clear from what emerged during the election campaign that the First Minister is the person exercising the veto.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is absolutely clear from what has been said that the Executive have failed to live up to their responsibilities and deliver. As the memory of the Stormont House Agreement of two years ago and of the so-called Fresh Start of one year ago fade, we are still doing nothing to meet the needs of victims. When the Lord Chief Justice, at the beginning of September, made his speech to start the legal term, he said something extremely significant. I think that some people, because of the measured language that he uses as a judge, did not notice the significance of his criticism of the Executive for their failure to deliver. It is now a year since he was given responsibility for the Coroners' Courts and since he, Lord Justice Weir and a number of other judges — it was Lord Justice Weir, Mr Attwood, not Lord Justice Kerr.”
“Today we have all shown our concern for the victims of the past by adopting three somewhat different approaches. The Sinn Féin motion endorses the Lord Chief Justice's plans for inquests and then calls on the British Government to provide funding for them, but it says nothing at all about Executive responsibilities. The Ulster Unionist amendment only notes the Lord Chief Justice's plans, although, in proposing it, Doug Beattie did not seem to know what he was noting, and calls on the Executive to produce a balanced plan to move forward in all areas of dealing with the legacy of the past. The SDLP amendment endorses the Lord Chief Justice's plans and notes the failure of the Executive to deliver so far, while also putting responsibility on the British Government to deliver.”
“We all know what "due course" means from this Executive.”
“— which were totally lacking in July. So much so that in July the foreword, signed by the three Ministers, said that:”
“I would like to clarify the timescale. I am grateful to my colleague for giving way, although the Minister did not want to take any interventions on grounds of time. We should, however, give her some credit: at least there is a Minister in the Chamber, unlike yesterday. Paragraph 4.3 in section A of 'A Fresh Start' says that:”
“Since it is her decision, she clearly has a plan for how to fund it.”
“The Minister has made it fairly clear today that this decision is her personal decision; indeed, she rather suggested to Mr Attwood that it was one that she had taken in the last 24 hours. The decision is to reverse my decision of last February, which was based on a consultation and based on solid evidence produced by the staff of the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service, including an impact assessment that, it appears, has not been seen by members of the Justice Committee or, indeed, by the Minister herself. Given that it is the Minister's personal decision, could she tell us how she plans to fund the £1·1 million that will now be spent on keeping half-empty courthouses in operation, not to mention the ongoing costs for the Police Service and Prison Service, both of which would have seen reductions in expenditure?”
“Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think that you will find that question 3 was at least as specific as question 1 and was on a specific issue of governance, not on fish stocks.”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The first question to the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs came from Mr McKee and was about pollution in the Annsborough river. Trevor Lunn mentioned a number of other pollution incidents, and you gently reprimanded him for extending the question. However, under question 3, in which Mr Eamonn McCann queried the governance of the Lough Neagh Fishermen's Co-operative, a question was allowed from Mr William Humphrey about fish stocks on the Erne. Will you agree to raise this issue with the Speaker, with a view to his issuing written guidance on the relevance of supplementary questions, since there is clearly a lacuna in Standing Orders?”
“The Minister indicated that officials had discussed the allocation of licences with representatives of the cooperative. Can we take it, therefore, that she has not yet had discussions with the members of the cooperative who are currently not allocated licences and are currently in dispute with the cooperative?”
“Since I never had any connection with UCUNF but did have a small part in setting up the three-person panel on paramilitarism, I hope that the Minister will give me a straight answer. I welcome his statement, but he acknowledged that only £3·9 million out of £10 million budgeted for tackling paramilitary activity has been allocated at this late stage in the year — the last occasion for planned realistic changes to budgets. That is largely because of the failure to publish the proper action plan that was due in June of this year. Given the expertise that the Minister and his Department have, will he advise the House whether he has given any advice to other Ministers about their complete failure so far to put together the action plan that is so sadly needed? It means that we are losing out on £5 million of Treasury funding.”
“What powers does the Minister's Department have to ensure greater coordination between other agencies that have the right to dig up roads, specifically if there is injury or damage caused? Is the contractor held liable, or is the Department for Infrastructure liable?”
“I entirely accept that the Minister — indeed, the two Ministers — cannot take action on the issue without Executive approval, but it is entirely within their gift to publish the report that has been presented to them. Given the sensitivity of the issue and the widespread public concern, will the Minister commit to discussing with the Justice Minister the immediate release of the report before any action can be agreed by the Executive?”
“We know that the Treasury has guaranteed funding for agricultural support until 2020, which is not much of a guarantee given that the UK could not leave the EU before 2019. The Minister talked about expediting the process for the other grants. Has he any indication that the Treasury will also expedite the application and ensure that things are not held up in the Treasury so that groups in Northern Ireland will not lose out?”
“A very quick question: is the deputy First Minister aware of the timescales for answering freedom of information requests, and why was there such a delay in answering these particular requests?”
“I thank the Minister for her statement and for the publication of the programme for work. To follow up on Mr McPhillips's point, the statement referred to exploratory work to be commissioned between the two Departments on the issues affecting the justice system in the event of the UK leaving the EU. Will the Minister give a firm commitment to publish that research? Will she also give a commitment to publish any research that has already been commissioned in her Department and make that fully available, particularly on the dangers of losing the European arrest warrant that was so nearly lost two years ago? On that topic, can she give us some information on the item highlighted under the public protection project advisory group and what opportunities she thinks there now are to explore European Union funding?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It will not have escaped your attention that there was no ministerial response to the debate this afternoon. I understand that that has also been the case in some recent Adjournment debates, although I note that Mr Hazzard is in his place at present. It seems to me that that is an insult to the House and specifically to you as Speaker of the House and our representative. Will you review the record of Ministers in this mandate and the last and consider whether any action could be taken in that respect? I believe that it simply would not be tolerated in any other legislature in these islands.”
“That is the reality of the way in which the Executive have been set up. The interesting point in the next few minutes, as we walk through the Ayes Lobby in support of two amendments and a motion, will be to see how many Ministers, who are currently hiding in their rooms around this Building, turn up to walk through the Noes Lobby.”
“Mr Speaker, I did lose 45 seconds for a point of order.”
“If the First Minister and the deputy First Minister were not available, any Minister could have done it, yet they just sent out their Back-Benchers to read spurious speeches, refuse interventions and prove absolutely the point that we are making collectively in the Chamber about the lack of openness and transparency, and the fundamental change to close matters down, which has happened since the election in May. That said, some of us are well aware of how little was shared within the Executive at the time —”
“<BR /> <BR />Whilst it is very welcome to see Mr Weir finally arrive, for the purpose of this debate, there was no First Minister, no deputy First Minister, no junior Ministers, no DUP Minister until the last two minutes and no Sinn Féin Ministers. The Justice Minister was not even present, yet any one of them could have responded to a motion that calls for Executive action. Any one of them could have been here. <BR /> <BR />Some people may be too busy, and I thought that the Ulster Unionists would have given us a quick quip about drinking champagne in Birmingham, but perhaps we have overdone that analogy.”
“We have a Minister — is that not amazing? I can no longer say the line that was coming up next; there must be a DUP spy in the Gallery with binoculars. The fact that there has not been a single Minister in the House until the last two minutes of a debate that lasted an hour and three quarters is an example of the contempt with which the Executive are treating not only the opposition but the people of Northern Ireland and the institutions, and the legislation that set up these institutions to provide a different way of doing government, which is built on partnership between the Executive and the Committees and the Executive and the Assembly. That is what this place is supposed to be about, and that is absolutely what they are not doing.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Justice Committee was informed all the way through, just as it was informed about monitoring rounds, even when they were not part of normal Executive processes, because, in the early days, the DOJ was ring-fenced. So I will not take any lectures from Edwin Poots or anybody else as to how the DOJ ran. <BR /> <BR />The fact that we have had people attempting to pretend that this place can be Westminster, when all our history since 1972 is that this place cannot be a mini-Westminster, is a clear example of their attempt to cover up, although I noticed that even Sinn Féin did not manage excuses like Westminster. <BR /> <BR />We also need to ensure that we see that the way in which the institutions were set up in 1998 are observed in spirit and in practice and not just as a letter of the law that is largely ignored.”
“With the bad manners customary of a number who contributed today, he is not here. <BR /> <BR />The Prison Service recently set out a plan for capital redevelopment, which was praised for its effectiveness and how well constructed it was by a Finance Minister who, at the time, was a member of the DUP, but no money was released to do the essential building work in any of the prisons. There was a consultation on the review team's proposals, which would have closed down Magilligan. When I did consultations in the DOJ, they were open, inclusive and genuine, so, as a result, that proposal was reversed because a good case was made.”
“Let me tell Mr Poots what happened with accommodation at Magilligan —”
“I understood from Mr Lynch’s contribution, referring to the three opposition parties, that they opposed everything in the Executive. He did not take an intervention from me because that was not the case. The way in which I treated the Committee as a Minister was anything but the way he tried to present it. <BR /> <BR />Mr Lyons said that we should not expect others to do the job for us. No, we expect others to provide the information that they are duly bound to provide in the way in which our structures of government are set up, and then we can do our job of scrutinising properly. This place is not Westminster. This place is set up in a different way, which is supposed to be about partnership, consensus and working together, and that has been completely ignored. <BR /> <BR />Mr Poots somehow managed to work in Magilligan prison.”
“Is DARD moving its headquarters to Ballykelly in a way that is clearly unravelling as the Executive rush around desperately trying to find anybody who is prepared to take a desk in a building that is being built with no business case not an issue of concern? Is the expenditure through SIF, which was carried out without proper due process and not by the Departments with proper responsibility, not an issue of public concern? Of course they are all issues of public concern that two parties wish to cover up. Is the use of the royal prerogative when legislation exists for the appointment of civil servants and special advisers not an issue of public concern? We could have historical lectures on how the royal prerogative originated, but this is the 21st century.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will try to make some progress. <BR /> <BR />Those of us at this end of the Chamber have been accused of discussing issues that are of concern only in "the bubble". Are NAMA and the allegations of potential corruption in this society matters for the bubble? Is the fact that the Bengoa report, prepared with all-party inclusion in discussions, has been sitting since the early part of the summer on a Minister's desk without being published not a matter of public concern, given the question for urgent oral answer we had earlier? Is the cover-up of the Budget and the failure to engage in any meaningful discussion with the Committees appointed to advise and assist Ministers not an issue of concern? Nothing has been done about that.”
“I will happily give way to Mr McCartney if he wishes to give a specific example of when I may have done that.”
“Indeed, the contributions have been summed up by a number of others as "We won" or actually "We won, so get lost". I think Mr Allister's phrase was something along the lines of "We won, so suck it up". It is not a concept of democracy to say that an election result determines everything for five years. Democracy is about engagement, openness, transparency and everything that has not been shown by the Executive parties today.”
“Mr Speaker, I have lost 45 seconds to points of order. <BR /> <BR />Clearly, when the motion referred to problems with openness and transparency, two parties in the Chamber wanted to show us the problems they have with openness and transparency. That is being shown clearly, as a number of Members have said, by the ministerial absence from the Chamber for the debate, despite the fact that the motion and one of the amendments specifically call for Executive action and the presumption was there would be a Minister to respond. At this end of the Chamber, there was genuine discussion, but, at that end, there was complete refusal to engage, shown by the refusal to accept interventions, which does nothing to promote the concept that this is a debating chamber.”
“I am afraid that I will have to leave Mr Carroll to raise that with you, Mr Speaker. I could not possibly intrude on your good offices towards me by agreeing, although it illustrates something of the rules in the Chamber, where speaking rights are based solely on numbers rather than on variety of ideas, with the result that certain people get much less opportunity. Given the paucity of contributions from the other end of the Chamber, perhaps that requires some re-examination by the Business Committee.”
“My colleagues and I tabled the motion as a relatively broad-based motion, not seeking to prescribe specific issues but to highlight them and to allow for a wide-ranging, high-level debate. That is what Stephen Farry said when he was making the proposal. It is absolutely clear that we got that kind of open, high-level debate, in addition to some specific points. Well, we got it from this end of the Chamber; we certainly did not get it from the other end.”
“I am grateful for the fact that at least one Member of the DUP has the grace to give way, and I thank Mr Poots for that. Mr Poots and I have been in this House since 1998. The 1998 Northern Ireland Act specifies that the role of Committees is to "advise and assist" Ministers. Perhaps Mr Poots will now explain how that is to be their function if they are not given any information by Ministers.”
“I thank the Minister for this second statement. She will be pleased, I think, that following the valiant efforts of Mr McKee, Mr McGlone and Mr Attwood, I will not continue on the issue of European funding. Her statement mentions the reinstatement of the Foyle ferry service. For those of us who come from County Antrim, the Derry bypass — from Magilligan to Greencastle — is an attractive way of accessing Inishowen. Can she give us any understanding of the likelihood of being able to maintain a service on that route in the long term?”
“I thank the Minister for her statement. She will realise that the concentration on reducing the environmental impact of fuel laundering is particularly welcome to me, given the double-sided interest that I have. Can she give us any information on the involvement of the two environment agencies with the cross-border task force on organised crime? <BR /> <BR />I also note a significant number of references to Horizon 2020 and INTERREG. Is the Minister aware of information that I have received that there is a significant reluctance elsewhere in Europe for bodies to enter into consortia with UK bodies in the wake of the referendum vote? Has she any ideas as to how we will be able to continue to participate in those bodies?”
“A few years ago, the then Minister of Finance and Personnel praised the Prison Service for its work in planning capital build, not just for Magilligan but for Maghaberry and the women's facility at Hydebank. I congratulate the Minister on having cut the first sod for a new building at Maghaberry. Even if she has no news on Magilligan, does she have any news on the women's facility at Hydebank?”
“A lot needs to be done, and both legislation and direct action could be used by the Department, given all the constraints that, I accept, exist. There is no doubt that, otherwise, small numbers of our people will continue to suffer from this invasive weed.”
“In that sense, the potential for species control orders may be one way in which we could ensure that action is taken at an early stage to stop the threat to others. <BR /> <BR />There are problems because so much of this happens on what is described as waste ground. There is a real need for the Department to take responsibility and direct action, if a landowner is not doing so, because of the potential threat in many cases to more than one neighbour, given what we have heard about the dangers of spread. There are significant issues. There are ways in which those matters could be carried out and charges levied, using the English legislation or something similar, on those who own the land. There is also wasteland that needs to be addressed in a different way.”
“If people were more aware at an earlier stage, control would be rather more easily carried through. Perhaps we need to raise awareness by doing more than having a debate in the Chamber and, at least, to ensure that the NIEA gets the opportunity to publicise it, perhaps even with pictures or television coverage to show what it actually looks like. I suspect that many people do not realise what knotweed looks like until they find out the hard way how it affects them. <BR /> <BR />It is clear that we need to find ways that will stop the spread. Whilst, legally, somebody may be allowed to grow knotweed on their property, there is a real challenge in how that is done in a way that, in urban areas, does not become a threat to neighbours. That is currently not covered by the issues that we have.”
“Is the Minister able to tell us whether she has considered the question of the introduction of ASBOs or the use of ASBOs on a wider basis to deal with problems like this and whether there should there be discussions between her Department and DOJ on how that might be done? Clearly, the possibility that now exists in England and Wales under the Infrastructure Act 2015 of imposing species control orders is one way of addressing the threat from one piece of ground to another that perhaps needs to be considered for this area. <BR /> <BR />There is no doubt that there is a significant role that the Department or NIEA could play in raising awareness of the problem. In many cases, stands of knotweed get to a point where control becomes very expensive.”
“We have highlighted the massive blight on property owners when people are told the value of their house has dropped or someone is completely unable to sell or, as in at least one case highlighted in the media, they are unable to obtain a mortgage so they can let a property whilst buying another one. <BR /> <BR />Whilst it is undoubtedly correct that operations would need to be addressed on a North/South basis, given what we see of the transfer of waste, including contaminated soil, across the border, there is legal precedent that better comes from England and Wales at this stage to look at how we might make progress.”
“As Ms Dillon has already said, it is an offence to plant or cause to grow in the wild any plant listed in Part II of schedule 9 to the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, which includes Japanese knotweed. However, there is no legal requirement on a landowner to control or remove existing established areas of Japanese knotweed from their land, and therefore there are no enforcement mechanisms in place to control plants that are already established. That is where we run into the difficulties that have been highlighted of individuals whose property ends up being affected by invasion from adjacent property. The question is what level of legal enforcement we should have in this jurisdiction.”
“I congratulate Pam Cameron and her colleagues for bringing this forward. I do not think there is any need to rehearse the points that have already been made about the biology of Japanese knotweed, save to note that the research that is being done in England and Wales suggests that the only possible control is the psyllid, a Japanese insect that does not seem to thrive in the wetter climate of these islands, which presents a problem for us on an ongoing basis as to how we deal with it. <BR /> <BR />I would like to look at some of the legal options on how we can deal with the matter. I reference an answer by the previous Environment Minister, who has just been highlighted by Ms Bradley, to my colleague Chris Lyttle in June of last year on the difficulties and contradictions in our current law.”
“I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some reassurance as to exactly how she will take things forward from now on.”
“<BR /> <BR />I am not absolutely sure whether the precise wording of the motion or, indeed, the amendment is absolutely the right way forward, but I am sure that they both hint at necessary action and at the broad point that we need to ensure that we have proper controls of this waste and that it is dealt with in an efficient way that does not allow it to go to fly-tipping, landfill or, worst of all, burning. We need to ensure that we have a proper joined-up approach on a cross-border basis. We are well aware that, in the recent past, in this jurisdiction, waste has been shipped across the border, creating further difficulties for us in Northern Ireland after people have made illegal profits in the Republic. There is a lot that needs to be done in this area, and I certainly support the principle of the motion and the amendment.”