The Good Friday Generation #LyraMcKee Legacy

Yesterday one of the quotes from Lyra McKee that really struck home was this:

“We were the Good Friday Agreement generation, destined to never witness the horrors of war but to reap the spoils of peace. The spoils just never seemed to reach us.”

Today on the day after she died of the gun shot wound she received on the streets of Derry we learn that two others  of that Good Friday Agreement generation have been arrested for her murder. These are three young people who should have been able to reap the spoils of peace.

Twenty one years ago after that other Good Friday they was a feeling of hope about the future for Northern Ireland. Our politicians were talking about talking responsibility for our health service, our economy, our education and all the other departments. Trust me as someone who was in the civil service either side of devolution I know the enthusiasm that local politicians had (yes even those who were opposed to the Good Friday Agreement).

But this weekend after hearing about the ages of those arrested I got thinking. Is it really because the Good Friday Agreement generation didn't really reap the spoils of peace that we know have these young people taking to arms.

We have to acknowledge that there has been some unrest in certain areas for a while. We have to look at why this has allowed to escalate.

Our politicians have to take some responsibility, only last week Arlene Foster again used the scare story that unionists have to vote DUP to prevent Sinn Féin being the largest party. When our politicians still talk about us and them there is still division and not a shared future. Yesterday she was united with all the other parties standing in the Creggan at a vigil for a victim of violence in Northern Ireland.

The issues that impact the poorest in Northern Ireland whether in the Creggan or East Belfast, whether Protestant or Catholic, gay or straight have been put on hold for over 2 years now. Decisions that cannot be made without a Minister are not being made. The spoils of peace are at a standstill. Partially this is down to the two largest parties still posturing with us and them redlines.

Twenty one years on from the people of Northern Ireland voting to allow their politicians to take back control of our future. Twenty one years on from us trusting them to be able to share that power they are failing to act in our interests. At the moment there is too much playing at party politics rather that dealing with the real politics and sadly here in Northern Ireland too often that means making everything into a green or orange issue. If you are into consensus politics and agree with something that one side suggests you are even accused of the worst excesses of them uns.

This is not healthy, we need to step away from all of this name calling and work on making things better for the generation that didn't experience the horrors of war, we need to be able to provide with the opportunity to enjoy the spoils of peace.

Trump Horcrux unearthed by Northern Ireland election #AE17

Let's face it yesterday was a disaster for unionism in Northern Ireland politics. The Assembly shrank from 108 members to 80 but the Unionist members shrank in number from 56 to 40! Yes that is right 18 seats were taken away and the unionists lost 16 of them, 10 by the DUP the other 6 for the UUP.

Now last night time after time DUP representatives came on and talked about the media being the reason they were doing badly. Some even blamed it directly on the BBC while being interviewed by the BBC. Arlene Foster at her count was even hidden away in a room and refused to speak to the BBC all day. This is the so-called "leader" of Northern Ireland skulking away in a room and blaming it on one of the major television news channels. It's all sounding rather Trump-like.

The BBC were the local news that investigated the RHI scandal, they were also the same station that investigated Arlene's predecessor Peter Robinson over property speculation and his wife's affair. Yet through all of that Robinson still spoke to the BBC. The DUP were also claiming that people were still responding to their message, that it was transfer policies of other unionists that were costing unionism and that is was a nationalist surge that was doing them out of seats.

Let's look at some of those claims.

Was it what the media said. A lot of the time the BBC has reported exactly what Arlene and her team have said. They have been in debates not just for the election but in other mediums through the last 10 months. Of course there are also times they are invited unto The Nolan Show or The View or other shows and refuse to turn up to put their case. When they do turn up they talk about being progressive yet their policies by many are viewed as anything put. When they are challenged on this they become all defensive.

While they say that they lost seats because of what Mike Nesbitt said about transferring his vote to the SDLP is it not just possible that they did'y gain as many of that 10% higher turnout as the other parties because of what Arlene and her colleague more that what anyone else said? Maybe that 10% that came out to vote this time for parties that were prepared to break from the sectarian trenches. Maybe they wanted to stand up against Brexit. Maybe they wanted to stand up for equality. Maybe ther did want to send a message about the Renewable Heating Initiative or maybe it was a combination of all of these.

But yeah there are 40 Unionists, 39 Nationalists and 11 Others in the new Assembly. The DUP have lost their ability to lodge a Petition of Concern with just their own MLAs signing it.

But with all of the excuses and actions coming from the Donald Trump book How to Win Elections and Govern, maybe the DUP have been turned into a Donald Trump horcrux. There are only six more to find but I think the following is probably another of them. But the DUP horcrux has not been destroyed just yet, but it has taken damage.

Jim Wells to sue BBC over Homophobia claims #TheTruth

Apparently Jim Wells MLA told the Belfast Telegraph is the sue the BBC over reporting the story about the Lesbian couple he encountered while out campaigning for the 2015 Assembly elections. He claims that the comments were "doctored" and "misrepresented what he said"  He goes on to say that he will "stop at nothing to clear his name".

Well if he is to do that I cannot hold back on some truth that I have promised members of my family that I would not ever disclose. I also am lifting the gentleman's agreement I have with one of the BBC journalists who witnessed one of the events that I am about to unfold.

It is a little know fact that Jim Wells actually invited a leading Northern Irish LGBT+ activist the wedding of one of his daughters. I happen to know this to be true, because it was I who received the invite, you see said daughter's husband is part of my family. I had a quiet conversation with Jim on that occasion he shook my hand, spook to me and looked me in the eye. He was also close enough to smell my cologne and not one of these sensory seemed to be repugnant to Mr Wells.

I can only therefore surmise that later when he said all those who took part in Belfast Pride he found repugnant that the only sense that would cause that reaction would be if he tasted me!

However, this wedding and meeting took part before the first debate on marriage equality at Stormont. On that day I was attending the debate and there was an interlude between the debate and the vote for questions. It was during this time that I encountered Jim Wells as a homophobe for the first time. Homophobia is described as having an irrational fear of homosexuality and/or homosexuals. Which I think describes what actually happened in the the restaurant that day. I was in the queue beside the Rev Chris Hudson and across the way was the BBC journalist. Ahead of me was Jim Wells.

I started with a friendly "Hello Jim" at which he turned around, I was about to ask after the health of Grace his wife and the rest of the family but after a quick look at who I was, I happened to be wearing my rather large I'm Liberal badge with a rainbow Lib Dem bird, he said "Oh you're one of them" and quickly turned heal. Rather an irrational, fearful reaction if you ask me.

Even before that however, I was at a hustings in the Black Box about international development was as I was working in a politically restricted role at the time I couldn't of course at my name to this piece on the Liberal Democrats NI website. Today I feel we have to disclose that this was my first hand account. Jim Wells assistant who at the time was dating a member of family looked straight over at me and mouthed, "You can't possibly blog that".

A number of years later and that assistant actually married that member of my family. His boss was invited to the wedding, as was I. This was a much stranger family gathering Jim was actively seen to be looking in my direction and actively avoiding me at the same time by my mother and others. I even saw this myself from out of the corner of my eyes. I'm not sure what he was expecting if I ever went anywhere near him, but it was yet another example of what I can only describe as the actions of someone who has an irrational fear of something, the fact that that something was me a politically astute campaigner who amongst other things is gay may well indicate that there is homophobia as an undercurrent and not in the glib way which that word is used at times, but a genuine actual fear.

I feel sorry for Jim that he suffers from such fear. But if he wants the truth to come out I am more than happy to help in that happening.

UUP manifesto contains an LGB&T section, but silence on marriage #ae16

You can almost knock me over with a feather as for the first time in history one of the two main unionist parties in Northern Ireland has launched a manifesto that has a very strong section on LGBT+ issues.

This is an extract from the UUP manifesto:

LGB&T 
We want to build a Northern Ireland that is inclusive and safe for all our people, and that includes the LGB&T community.  Our society should have no cold spots for anyone because of their sexual or gender identity. 

In the next mandate we want to see zero tolerance of hate-crime, tackle the high levels of depression, anxiety, suicidal feelings and self-harm and stamp out homophobic and transphobic bullying in the classroom.

We would: 

• Bring forward the long awaited Sexual Orientation Strategy;

• Equip our teachers to effectively deal with homophobic and transphobic bullying in our schools; 

•  Support the toughening of sentences for aggravated crime;  

• Support the introduction of a Gender Neutral HPV vaccine;  

•  Work with local agencies to tackle poor levels of mental health and wellbeing in the LGB&T community;  

•  Bring restrictions on the donation of MSM blood in line with the rest of the United Kingdom; 

•  Support age-appropriate sex and relationship education.

The only missing component is obviously the issue that has haunted the last mandate of the NI Assembly the issue of equal marriage. It is clear that the UUP are leaving this as a matter of conscience for its elected M:LAs which means that while it has a largely LGBT+ friendly manifesto, voters would be advised to ask their individual candidates where they stand on that matter before considering their preferences.

I have asked the three in North Down:

• Chris Eisenstadt is in favour and would vote for equal marriage.
• Alan Chambers considers civil partnerships are far enough, not realising that the fact these are marriage leaving some of the friends and associates he assumes are LGBT+ open to direct and indirect discrimination by certain portions of our community. But then as he never seems to enquire he probably hasn't heard about those incidents.
• Carl McClean responded positively but failed to address marriage directly telling me to await the manifesto (I have given him a further chance to answer that specifically).

Eight "Labour" Candidates does this mean the time for NI Lib Dems to stand? #ae16

Firstly I must say I am writing this in a personal capacity and not in my role as Chair of Northern Ireland Liberal Democrats, that it why it is being blogged her and not on the NI Lib Dems website. The reason for this is that there are differing opinions with the NI Lib Dems and the Federal Constitution does stipulate that until the local party decides otherwise and brings a constitutional amendment before conference we cannot stand candidates.

One thing that strikes me about the list of candidates for the NI Assembly elections for 2016 is that 8 of the 18 constituencies have a Northern Ireland Labour Representation Committee member standing. There are also 10 constituencies where you can vote for the Conservatives.

While the latter are recognised by the national party, I understand that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was actually out canvassing with my local Conservative Candidate this afternoon. The former of course were recently not formally allowed to stand by the national executive of the Labour party, they appear to have done so anyway.

Political anoraks may be aware that the name Labour Representation Committee was the names used from 1900 until after the 1906 election by a group of candidates and activists that have since become the Labour Party. As far back as late 2010-11 when I was running the referendum campaign I became aware of the fact that Labour Party Members in Northern Ireland were looking at standing candidates for the Assembly elections and that they aimed to do this by 2016. I would appear that in eight seats they have managed to achieve this.

I have also noted that in his first speech as Deputy Prime Minister to a Liberal Democrat Conference in Autumn 2010 that Nick Clegg he intended for the party to stand in every seat in the Westminster election in 2015. Of course we didn't do that we didn't stand in any of the 18 Northern Ireland seats nor did we oppose the speaker seeking re-election.

Now I know that there are many in the Alliance who would consider themselves to be Liberal Democrats, some indeed would tend to vote that way if they life in the rest of the UK, some of course are dual members. There are others, most famously Naomi Long who after the 2010 election said she was not a Liberal Democrat and would not be taking the Lib Dem whip through that parliament, who would not.

I also know there are members within the Northern Ireland Liberal Democrats who do see the need to stand for elections in Northern, who think we should continue to throw our all behind the Alliance. Others raise issues about how we would be able to fund it, would be have enough supporters to run it etc.

As for the fact of raising the level of membership and funding I have watched with interest the increase in activity of the Northern Ireland Labour Party over the last 5 years. They have expressed their desire to seek election, to stand up for a normalisation of politics and not stand on sectarian lines, something that some of their members see support of the SDLP and maintaining.

I have also for a number of years watch the Alliance fudge issues that would for a liberal be a matter of principle. But when one of the tenets of your existence is merely to be non-sectarian some of the Liberalism that the Northern Ireland Liberal party once stood  for, before the return of Direct Rule and formation of Alliance in the 1970s, is not in main reason for being.

People have often asked me why I don't stand here in Northern Ireland for the Alliance Party. The reason you most often here is "I am too liberal for them". Many of the Alliance representatives will tell you that I challenge them a lot on what I see as logical liberal steps long before they have come to a party position on them. Reading twitter in light of the recent abortion debate I think there is a large section of Northern Irish society that is now too liberal for most of the Northern Irish parties as well. It looks like I am not alone, it looks like there is a liberal heartland out there that has survived and is starting to rear its head as the Northern Irish parties continue to get bogged down with the politics of division so much that they fail to deal with everyday issues. Or one side or the other will attempt to block them despite it not being a sectarian matter.

The Conservative stepped up in the 1980s, Labour are stepping up in 2016, is it time as Liberal Democrats to consider standing up for the liberals that do exist in Northern Ireland and give them a real liberal voice for the future?

Reminder this article though written by the current chair of Northern Ireland Liberal Democrats is written in a personal capacity and does not reflect the opinion of Northern Ireland Liberal Democrats or the Liberal Democrats.

Dear DUP, Please read my email before responding

The following is the latest email I sent to all my MLAs ahead of the Equal Marriage debate in Stormont on 2 November:

Dear Steven Agnew, Leslie Cree, Stephen Farry, Alex Easton, Peter Weirand Gordon Dunne,

I understand that yet again on the 2 November this year the Assembly will be debating the issue of equal marriage.

I also know that from previous votes some of my MLAs have signed a petition of concern about this issue.

Therefore I would like to volunteer my expertise in this issue as one of the drafters of the Liberal Democrat policy on the issue first for the Scottish Party, then the Federal Party that became the backbone of the legislation that now exists in the rest of the UK to be able to address those concerns.

If you have any concerns on this issue I know that due to lack of time busy serving you constituents on committees, in the chamber and elsewhere you may not have specialised knowledge of the issues at hand.

Therefore as someone who started looking into this particular issue back in 2001 before Civil Partnerships even came in and has advised several leading politicians on this issue I would be happy to address whatever concerns you may have before you sign yet another one ahead of this vote on 2 November.

I do not hear back about specific concerns that my MLAs have on this matter I will be informing the Spectator that as far as I'm aware there are no pressing concerns that would warrant such a petition.

I look forward to hearing from you and am prepared to meet any of you to discuss your concerns more fully between now and 2 November.

Yours sincerely,
Stephen Glenn

Therefore I do not think that the response I got (which is being replicated across Social Media from almost every DUP MLA) goes anyway to answering the specifics. Here is that response.

Stephen

Thank you for your e mail. I would however indicate that the position of the DUP has not changed on this issue, and we will be voting against the motion. 

Yours sincerely,
Peter Weir MLA

Clearly the fact that there are concerns that the DUP are not prepared to table a petition of concern about, but not prepared to listen to the concerns of those of us who have opposing concerns about the hive mentality that appears to exist in their number opposing not just the rest of the UK but the rest of the island of Ireland. The DUP are running scared but they are not the Borg, because their resistance will be futile.

Is there genuine concern to lodge petition?

When you look up certain phrases on Twitter you can sure to find the odd surprise. Here is a Tweet that someone posted yesterday in relation to the conscience clause.

My straight forward answer is no.

And here is my reasoning why.

Firstly the name is Petition of Concern (PoC). So ask yourself "is one community adversely affected by the legislation that is proposed?". The answer is yes, in that the "conscience clause" is a bill that is only being appended to the Sexual Orientation Regulations of the Equality Act and only allowing people with a religion objection to refuse, without legal comeback, goods, facilities and services by that group on the basis of behaviour or belief. Therefore yes there is a concern that one part of society is being treated as inferior by a master society, this is a genuine concern.

It is not a Bill giving everyone the freedom to exercise their conscience, for in the DUP's eyes that would lead to MSM giving blood, Lesbian and Gay couples adopting, getting married, women having abortions and yeah also being allowed to refuse service to bigots who have been spotted outside their shop with anti-gay literature and then seeking to buy something from an shopkeeper who is LGBT or whose relative or friend is.

There is also the fact that once one group of people is allowed to use their individual conscience to refuse to serve others what other groups will argue they should have the same individual freedom. If we all had our individual freedoms honoured all the time there would be no collective responsibility and anarchy would rule.

But then we are Northern Ireland so it would have to be an even greater anarchy that we seem to have experienced.

Now of course the community affected immediately  is not divided easily into "us uns" and "them uns" on the strict basis that the petition of concern was originally set up. There are LGBT people in both the protestant and catholic communities as well as in other faith groups and of no faith. There are LGBT people who recognise as Unionist, Nationalist or Other in the terms laid out for a vote in Stormont. Just as those in the other group are deemed to not have a valid opinion when any petition of concern is launched so it is that there is a flaw in the system. However, those who recognise as other are allowed to sign a PoC

Now the original questioner seems to see nothing wrong with blocking "same sex marriage" with a petition of concern. This is despite the fact that people in Northern Ireland have had civil partnerships in other parts of the UK which they can now convert to marriages, or have or are planning to have a same-sex marriage carries out elsewhere in the UK. These are not recognised as such here.

Another factor about the legislation on equal marriage that has been debated three times before Stormont is that each time it came before the floor of the chamber it had a built in conscience clause for all faith groups to make their own decision on whether they wanted to carry out same-sex marriages or not. The assumption may be that all faith groups here are opposed to the idea, that is not true. The petition of concern against opening up civil marriage to same sex couples and faith groups to have the option is a petition against people's freedom from religion as well as some faith groups freedom of religion.

Some people of faith have a conscience that allows them to marry people of the same-sex. Their conscience was actually denied by so called people of faith, speaking for all faith groups. Despite what the DUP say some people will use the conscience clause as a get out of jail free card when it comes to discrimination. I doubt that the questioner has ever experienced the looks and stares from Northern Irish business owners when you are in their establishment with a same-sex partner. I am not saying being overtly flirtatious, kissing or for that matter holding hands but clearly in a relationship and intimate through eye contact, words etc.

Currently the Equality Act means that under such circumstances protects all consumers from being refused. There is an issue with how certain messaging is handled, it is a grey area, something that can only be determined by case law, not by changing the law. I've heard the argument that same-sex marriage is illegal in Northern Ireland so they were right to refuse it.

However, it is not illegal to be a married same-sex couple in Northern Ireland, you are just re-labeled as civil partners. Also if the argument is that that no group can campaign on anything in the law being changed there would be no such thing as lobbying, indeed the camp at Twaddell Avenue set up to protest the legal decision made by the parades commission would also be something that nobody should campaign about under that logic of legality.

Having said that I don't like the petition of concern process. But while the DUP use it to block progress, on LGBT issues or integrated education or something else that doesn't appeal to their core. When it is being used to ensure that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law I think that is the correct usage. The shame of course is that the process has been abused too much by those on both sides that we fail to see it as serving a purpose to protect equality of opportunity (at least if you identify as Unionist or Nationalist).

Parties cancel trip to brewery

DUP and Sinn Féin are sorry to announce that the planned piss up at Hilden Brewery this weekend has had to be cancelled.

Find out more here.

Gordon Dunne yesterday in Stormont

Yesterday in Stormont one of my MLAs for North Down Gordon Dunne (DUP) asked the following question to OFMDFM:

Mr Dunne asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether they believe that, given the launch today of a private Member’s Bill to include a conscience clause, the Equality Commission should now withdraw legal action against Ashers Bakery pending the outcome of the legislative process. (AQT 1861/11-15)

The response seeing as it was the Deputy First Minister answering the questions (although he deferred to his junior minister was actually better than if it had been left to the unionist side of OFMDFM I suspect.

Mr M McGuinness: With your permission, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, junior Minister McCann will answer this question.
Ms J McCann: I thank the Member for his question. I am aware that some discussions took place between the Equality Commission and the bakery prior to the civil case being taken. The main issue is the extent to which suppliers of goods and services can refuse service on the grounds of sexual orientation, religious beliefs or political opinion. I think that the civil case will determine whether any discrimination has taken place.
Mr Dunne: I thank the junior Minister for her answer. Does she agree that the Equality Commission should withdraw its legal action pending against Ashers Bakery at this time?
Ms J McCann: It is not up to OFDMFM to agree or disagree with the Equality Commission. It is its own body and it has an independent role to advance fairness and equality for all. It is also responsible for implementing legislation on all those cases and challenging discrimination. We have to leave it to the Equality Commission because, at the end of the day, that will be where it will see whether discrimination happened. I am sure that the Equality Commission will have taken whatever measures it could have before entering into that case.

The point is that no matter what anybody's political persuasion the Equality Commission has to be allowed to operate independently as it is often testing the Assembly's own adherence to equality. Plus they have to act on the law as it stands at the moment.

Indeed surely the Assembly which has taken over 8 years in some consultations and still no action on activity cannot delay the legal process. But does this mean that this consultation and possibly never enacted Bill are a new stalling tactic that the DUP are using to prevent LGBT people from getting a determination in law if they feel their rights have been violated. If so, this is a new low even for the DUP and proves that the Conscience Clause is nothing of the sort but a get at LGBT people by a different means.

When is an answer not an answer? #SexualOrientationStrategy

Earlier this year we finally had a consultation of Northern Ireland's sexual orientation strategy (SOS) but seem to have heard nothing since.

So I decided to see when was the first question to OFMDFM about it delivery. I think I have found it here on the 8 October 2007

Sexual Orientation Strategy  and Action Plan5. Dr Farry asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to detail what progress has been made towards presenting and launching the sexual orientation strategy and action plan.    (AQO 380/08)The First Minister: A consultation on the draft sexual orientation strategy and action plan was carried out during direct rule under the former Secretary of State Peter Hain. The draft strategy has yet to be considered by Ministers and the Executive.Dr Farry: I thank the First Minister for that answer, even though it was rather brief. Can he assure me that all Ministers are working in harmony on sexual orientation issues and that this draft strategy will be brought forward as soon as possible? Does he agree that sexual orientation issues need to be seen through the prism of good relations? Will consideration be given to placing sexual orientation issues within the wider remit of the shared future strategy and, in particular, the second triennial action plan?The First Minister: The First Minister and deputy First Minister have made it clear that the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister is totally committed to promoting equality and human rights and is completely opposed to any form of discrimination or harassment against any citizen.Mr Storey: Will the First Minister inform the House who approved the current funding package, and has any further funding been agreed?The First Minister: Mr Peter Hain approved the package; neither I nor my colleague across the way has since approved any funding.Mr McCartney: Does the First Minister agree that, in order to be effective, the draft sexual orientation strategy needs the full and total support of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister?The First Minister: That is a matter for negotiation. I can say only that we have to face the facts that are before us, and the facts are that the money that is now being provided is based on the undertaking made by the then Secretary of State Peter Hain and that the draft strategy has yet to be considered by Ministers or the Executive.

Yet tomorrow one of the First Minister's party colleagues intends to lodge a Private Members Bill for consultation on introducing a conscience clause into equality legislation. When you bear in mind that Peter Hain left the Northern Ireland department on 27 June 2007 and it was he who started the talk of a sexual orientation strategy this shows the level of procrastination that the DUP have on dealing with sexual orientation.

Of course we are still in talks about the past, parades and symbols at the moment which is another procrastination from the time that powers were first devolved. Therefore the speed with which the DUP can dismantle something considering the length of time they fail to come to an agreement on building things for a truly shared future.

Later questions on this issue:

• In June 2008 determined that the draft would be presented to ministers that Autumn
• In February 2009 that a refreshed SOS would be presented to Ministers for consideration by early summer 2009
• In May 2010 the needs analysis had yet to be carried out before presentation to OFMDFM
• In September 2010 we were told that the recent Cohesion, Sharing and Integration indicated that ministers were committed to publishing the SOS 
• In a verbal question that month we told it would not be published sooner than 2012
• On 21 February 2011 the minister opened that he "was not aware of any significant delay in publication" despite most of the times scales above being missed
• In October 2011 draft proposals were about to be made available to the OFMDFM committee for publication and public consultation in early 2012
• In February 2012 it was confirmed that is would be published during that year
• In June 2012 we were told that the draft SOS would be published in December 2012
• In October 2012 December was replaces with the more vague "near future"
• In January 2013 with no publication we were told they remained committed to publication (again)
• In July 2013 when asked why it had failed to be published and when to expect it deadlines were not in the answer
• In October 2013 a consultation document was under consideration at the departmenr
• In January 2014 there was mention of a draft consultation document being prepared for public consultation
• In February 2014 when asked about publication of SOS the Minister said he had asked officials to launch a public consultation on which to base the SOS

The development consultation document was finally published in March 2014, we are once again approaching the end of another year waiting the results of that consultation to form the basis of the draft Sexual Orientation Strategy and Action Plan.

On the 13 November Stewart Dickson tabled the seemingly annual question since 2007 "To ask the First Minister and deputy First Minister when the Sexual Orientation Strategy will be published." because we are still waiting for the actual strategy and action plan eight years on.

Paul Givan is going to put his Conscience Clause out to consultation after he lodges it tomorrow. Can you think he's be happy waiting over 8 years for something to come out of that initial consultation? Yet this is why the people he thinks people of faith need protecting from are still waiting to have their concerns properly addressed. 

It is time for the DUP to actually sort things out. Provide the Sexual Orientation Strategy. And the Race Strategy and Gender Strategy and all the things that link into Equality that they have been constantly procrastinating about since they took over the role of First Minister following the St Andrews Agreement. They need to do more than draw their salary they need to do things and not let things constantly get to a crisis point before they consider action and that often the wrong actions.

We need politicians who are not suffering from myopia but are far sighted enough to make plans and strategies for the future. When I word in DETI there was an Economic Strategy for the forthcoming 10 years called Strategy 2010. A subsequent strategy is now in place, but if DETI had taken 8 years to come up with a 10 year strategy there would be major questions asked.

So I'm asking one today. How come all the equality strategies have not being actioned expeditiously? 

Please Sir, do Northern Ireland have to take more? Part 2

I wrote yesterday about some of the powers that Northern Ireland wanted to have added to Stormont. It may have been because I was lacking sleep, or maybe because I didn't think anybody really realistically wanted to bring either of these two into our control that I left them off that piece. However, yesterday  I was reminded that my piece was lacking a couple of things.

Firstly in light of the referendum Sinn Féin have called for a similar choice here in Northern Ireland, only for it to be should Northern Ireland become part of united Irish state rather than a question of independence. There is provision and regulation for this set out in the Northern Ireland Act. It is in the gift of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and another "border poll" cannot be called for at least seven years. Of course unlike Scotland the Northern Ireland First Minister says such a poll is not needed.

However, Peter Robinson better be careful of not falling into a trap of assuming something that isn't necessarily the case as some of the Westminster leaders failed to do so. Labour and Conservatives while being part of the Calman Commission in Scotland didn't really take the issue further. The Liberal Democrats of course with their previous Steel Commission and subsequent study by Ming Campbell had discussing such issues in their party DNA and have had debates about further devolution elsewhere as well in recent years.

The option is there to have a poll and it may be worth considering as part of sorting out the long term nature of the UK before you start to work out or agree upon the devolutionary package for all the constituent parts. If Robinson is so confident of winning, especially if more powers are on the way, then what does he have to fear? Apart from seeing how close unionism is to losing, instead of how far nationalism is from uniting Ireland. This of course would not be a question of better alone or better together but rather one of better in one nation or another.

The other thing that I do not believe Northern Ireland politicians seriously think we are ready to have devolved to us is welfare payments. The reason I cannot believe this one is being talked about is the fact that over the last year and more they have been unable to come to a settlement on the little control they have of this themselves to fit into the budget that is being set for them from Westminster. To then even hand over the complex nature of the budgeting of such payments would lead to a quagmire into which the most needy in our society will see the reforms to the payments they relay on disappearing into the indecisiveness of our political "elite".

As I said yesterday if the MLAs at Stormont want to be given more power they must also accept some radical adjustments to the way that they currently work or else the whole thing will grind to an almighty halt. The question still is are they ready to give up some of that unequal power that currently exists to allow us to have more power that is the way with normal procedures across these islands.

Please Sir, do Northern Ireland have to take more?

So the only land border in these British Isles will remain the one that starts on the western shore of Lough Foyle just south of Muff and stretches around the six most north easterly counties of the second largest isle and into Carlingford Lough beside Newry.

The talk of course, in light of the result in Scotland's independence referendum last night, is that there will be a deal deal on devolution to not just them but England, Wales and Northern Ireland too. So what does it mean to those six counties surrounded by than only land boundary with the Eurozone.

The first is that one major power that that part of the UK wants is the power to adjust their Corporation Tax levels to be able to compete with their new neighbours. But what about the powers that they already have? There is already too much of a them and us mentality on various matters, petitions of concern are constantly being used to secure a veto by one community of another. So maybe to allow them to work with more power is a chance to make Stormont work together in a different way.

Maybe one of the powers that is taken away from Northern Ireland to enable policy to be carried is the requirement for a cross community vote at the moment the largest party on either side can stifle the vote, and those that designate as others say it voided. Maybe there is leverage there to maintain the weighted majority of 60% for an area of concern but do away with the need for 40% of each community to also agree. This would led to the ability of cross community agreement but also give the smaller parties and those that designate as other at present to have an equal say in legislation. It might also be a good idea to set up some sort of ombudsman to lay out guidelines and judge if they are met for such a new petition of concern being tabled, one of those areas that it should be done away with is when the competency of a Minister is being debated.

If we can do away with the designations of unionist or nationalist we may well have politics that instead of concentration on them uns and us uns will actually look at the needs of all the people. It may even led to people voting for parties because of what they stand for rather that who they stand with as then you wouldn't necessarily want a party that is conservative standing to block things that benefit others but voting for a party whose policies benefit you and your vision of Northern Ireland.

I think if we are looking at giving more power to Northern Ireland we have to give that power to the people irrespective of who they vote for doing away with the sectarianism is one step. The other might be to create an official opposition. There would need to be a way of looking at this. It would do away with the d'Hondt system of appointing ministers, who would then be only within the hands of the partied of Government, but the danger then is that the Unionists would form that Government between them, so it could be back to the bad old days of the 60s carving up the plum positions only within unionism which would be a retrograde step. This may well be a step too far for Northern Irish politicians and indeed their voters at this time and have to return to the back burner.

But the one thing is that if Northern Ireland is to be given more powers I suspect that we need to look at how better to operate the powers that they currently have to enable progression rather than stagnation.

Does marriage equality act contravene the Northern Ireland Act?

Something has just recently struck me that the wording in Schedule 2 of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 may actually be worded in such as way that the Northern Ireland Act 1998 cannot support the wording.

Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 states:

75 Statutory duty on public authorities.

(1)A public authority shall in carrying out its functions relating to Northern Ireland have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity—

(a)between persons of different religious belief, political opinion, racial group, age, marital status or sexual orientation;

(b)between men and women generally;

(c)between persons with a disability and persons without;

and

(d)between persons with dependants and persons without.

(2)Without prejudice to its obligations under subsection (1), a public authority shall in carrying out its functions relating to Northern Ireland have regard to the desirability of promoting good relations between persons of different religious belief, political opinion or racial group.

(3)In this section “public authority” means—

(a)any department, corporation or body listed in Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (departments, corporations and bodies subject to investigation) and designated for the purposes of this section by order made by the Secretary of State;

(b)any body (other than the Equality Commission) listed in Schedule 2 to the Commissioner for Complaints (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (bodies subject to investigation);

(c)any department or other authority listed in Schedule 2 to the Ombudsman (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (departments and other authorities subject to investigation);

 Yeah one of the things that a public authority (Schedule 2 includes the Government of the United Kingdom) should have due regard to promote equality of opportunity is marital status. Now besides the fact that Civil Partnerships do not include a mention (even in amendments) within the Northern Ireland Act there does seem a requirement for the Northern Ireland Assembly and UK Government to promote equality of opportunity regardless of marital status.

However, when we turn to Schedule 2 of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 we find the following wording:

Northern Ireland

2(1)Under the law of Northern Ireland, a marriage of a same sex couple under the law of England and Wales is to be treated as a civil partnership formed under the law of England and Wales (and accordingly, the spouses are to be treated as civil partners).

(2)The Secretary of State may by order—

(a)provide for the treatment of a marriage as a civil partnership (by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)) to have effect subject to provision made by the order;

(b)specify cases in which a marriage is not to be treated as a civil partnership by virtue of sub-paragraph (1).

Is this equality of opportunity?

No!

A marriage by any other name is not a marriage, even if what was carried out is a marriage and not a civil partnership, it is still a marriage and should be treated with equality of opportunity by public authorities within and pertaining to Northern Ireland.

In their bid to retain institutionalised homophobia the Unionist parties (and at Westminster mainly the DUP) appear to have fallen into breaching the Act that gives them authority to make devolved decisions. In this case it appears to fail the equality of opportunity to have such marriages called exactly what they are and limiting such a marital status to something else.

Equal Marriage for Northern Ireland: Take 3

Mark the 29th April 2014 in your diaries.

Yesterday Sinn Féin lodged yet another motion with the Northern Irish Assembly that will be debated one month on from the date that the first same-sex marriages took place in England and Wales. The motion is rather more robust that the one that tried to bring to the house after the Irish Constitutional Convention decided that they would hold a referendum on the matter in the Republic of Ireland. It reads:

That this Assembly notes that other jurisdictions on these islands have moved forward with equal marriage rights for same-sex couples; believes that all couples, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, should have the same legal entitlement to marry and to the protections, rights, obligations and benefits afforded by the legal institution of marriage; supports freedom of religion by allowing religious institutions to define, observe and practise marriage according to their beliefs, granting them the freedom whether or not to conduct same-sex marriages; calls on the Minister of Finance and Personnel to introduce legislation to guarantee that couples of any sex or gender identity receive equal benefit; and further calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to ensure that all legislation adheres to the Executive’s commitments to protect equality for all. 

This motion allows the freedom of religion that everyone will no doubt go on about, allow freedom of the individual and bring about parity that was lacking from the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act. of course it leaves us a month to try and lobby unionist politicians that have thus far voted overwhelmingly against any legal advances for the LGBT community.

DUP take the tortoise and the hare too far

Today in the Northern Ireland Assembly in their final plenary session of 2013 discussed this Alliance Party motion:

That this Assembly notes that a sexual orientation strategy was subject to consultation in 2006; further notes that public commitments to publish a document by the end of 2013 were made by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister in Together: Building a United Community; expresses its deep concern that this document does not appear to have progressed to date; and calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to publish a cross-departmental sexual orientation strategy as a matter of priority.

Now you'd have thought that seven years after consultation would be enough time to bring forward any strategy document. I know that when I was working in the Department of Enterprise Trade and Investment my branch was responsible for the economic strategy document going forward 10 years. It was published in 1999 less than a year after devolution and was covering all the complex issues of Northern Ireland's economy going forward. One of its recommendations was to produce and Information Age Initiative, this was done in 2000 less than a year later. Both documents were critically received and although some felt they could have gone further in certain directions they were a path finder for what was arguably the most important of the devolved departments.

Now this brings us to the issue of the Sexual Orientation Strategy (SOS). As Anna Lo said when moving the motion:

A consultation took place in 2006, and a strategic action plan was drafted to identify and tackle human rights issues relating to sexual orientation.  Following devolution, it was shelved in 2007, along with the shared future and racial equality strategies.  It is not unreasonable for OFMDFM to want to take ownership of these strategies under devolution, but seven years is too long to produce our own version.  Let me explain.

In 2010, the cohesion, sharing and integration strategy consultation indicated that Ministers were fully committed to publishing a sexual orientation strategy.  At the end of that year, it was confirmed by junior Minister Newton that a strategy would be published.  In 2011, junior Minister Bell told the Assembly that the final consultation process would take place in early 2012, with a view to publishing a strategy before the end of 2012.  In October 2012, the Department outlined that a draft public consultation document was under consideration and would be published in the near future.  In February 2013, Minister Bell outlined to the Assembly that the Department remained committed to publishing a strategy and that it was currently under consideration.  The announcement of the Together: Building a United Community strategy committed OFMDFM to publishing a sexual orientation strategy once the consultation process had been completed.

However, the only speakers and in the end the only MLAs who had objections to publishing a strategy were the DUPO. First Stephen Moutray said:

It is simple:  consultation must take place before the strategy can be brought forward.

Now forgive me for being dumb but the consultation started in 2006. In both 2012 and 2013 we were promised by the Junior Minister for OFMDFM at the time from his own party that the SOS would be published by the end of the year. On both those occasions it was implied that consultation was complete and it was down to drafting. So why has the strategy not been brought forward?

He went on to say:

if the Alliance Party cared to speak with the sector, it would ascertain that that sector is broadly content with the way in which the Assembly is dealing with the matter.

 Now I wonder has Mr Moutray spoken to the LGBT sector, he certainly hasn't been at any of the LGBT consultative forum meetings that have time and time again talked about the frustration that the assembly have failed to publish a SOS. Now was he there when they discussed the lack of SOS being mentioned but in passing in the ludicrous Draft Cohesion Sharing and Integration strategy, which has also since to resurface in the light of day since 2010.

His colleague George Robinson said:

I hope that those who tabled the motion will see the benefit of supporting the current work in progress to achieve the workable solution that I see as critical to a successful outcome.  Clarity, not haste, is the essential factor in producing a workable strategy.  It is for those reasons that I cannot support the motion.

The LGBT do not want a work in progress. Nor do we want a document that has been promised take over what would have been two terms to come to the table if it not published within the next twelve months. The delay in publishing this is already longer than the period that an LGBT teenager is expected to spend in secondary school, without any consideration, nor any mention of homophobic bullying. As we heard in the debate 85% of LGBT youth in Northern Ireland contemplate suicide and 35% have attempted it.

Is it really so awkward to develop a strategy especially when documents exist in the rest of the UK already laying out best practices in the workplace, accommodation, health care and education that can be adapted to the Northern Irish situations? Or is it just awkward for the DUP to face up to their Section 75 obligations and acknowledge that something needs to be done of the LGBT people in Northern Ireland who do not feel save to outwardly express their love for a partner in public as they would do in Glasgow, London, Cardiff and even small provincial towns.

International Women's Day doesn't stretch to Northern Ireland

Friday may have be International Women's Day but tomorrow in the Northern Ireland Assembly it is likely to be anything but.

At the last minute the DUP and SDLP have added an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill.

Amendment 1
New Clause
After clause 11 insert -

‘Ending the life of an unborn child

Ending the life of an unborn child

11A.-(1) Without prejudice to section 58 and section 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and section 25 of the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945 and subject to subsection (2) any person who ends the life of an unborn child at any stage of that child’s development shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction on indictment to a period of not more than ten years’ imprisonment and a fine.

(2) It shall be a defence for any person charged with an offence under this section to show-

(a) that the act or acts ending the life of an unborn child were lawfully performed at premises operated by a Health and Social Care Trust, or

(b) that the act or acts ending the life of the unborn child were lawfully performed without fee or reward in circumstances of urgency when access to premises operated by a Health and Social Care Trust was not possible.

(3) For the purposes of this section a person ends the life of an unborn child if that person does any act, or causes or permits any act, with the intention of bringing about the end of the life of an unborn child, and, by reason of any such act, the life of that unborn child is ended.

(4) For the purposes of this section ‘lawfully’ in subsection (2) means in accordance with any defence or exception under section 58 and section 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and section 25 of the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945.’

The reason for this amendment if because for the first time last year a private abortion clinic was set up.Marie Stopes say that they are acting within the very strict Northern Ireland rules on terminations. But of course they operate outside the remit of the Northern Ireland Health Minister, who happens to be a male DUP MLA.

On Sunday Nicky Campbell's: Big Question came from Derry and the first issue was abortion. I heard one of the first contributors say that there was no demand or need for abortion on demand in Northern Ireland. However, there are 1000s of women from the island of Ireland who every year travel to England, Scotland or Wales to seek help with termination. But also there is an open letter that was published today, which over 100 women in Northern Ireland have been brave enough to sign.

We, the undersigned, have either taken the abortion pill or helped women to procure the abortion pill in order to cause an abortion here in Northern Ireland.  We represent just a small fraction of those who have used, or helped others to use, this method because it is almost impossible to get an NHS abortion here, even when there is likely to be a legal entitlement to one.  We know that Stormont Ministers and the Public Prosecution Service are aware that such abortions have been taking place in the region for some years, but are unwilling to prosecute for a range of reasons, at least partly to do with not wanting an open debate around the issue of when women here should have a right to abortion.

We are publishing this letter now because of the Givan/Magennis amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill which we believe is aimed at closing down the debate on abortion here, as much as it is about closing down Marie Stopes.  We want to emphasise that medical abortions happen in Northern Ireland on a daily basis but without any medical support or supervision. We were delighted when Marie Stopes came to Belfast as it meant that women who are unwell, and therefore eligible for a legal abortion, can access a doctor to supervise what we have done or helped others to do without medical help.

 

We live in the only part of the UK that still does not have a childcare strategy. We face huge cuts in children’s living standards if the Assembly passes the Welfare Reform Bill without major amendment. If our politicians showed as much zeal in protecting the lives of children who are already born, perhaps we would have fewer women seeking abortion because of poverty.

This is over something as small to those in the rest of the UK as taking an abortion pill. Something that women in the rest of the UK have the right to choose to do. But Northern Ireland never enacted the 1967 Abortion Act. Back street abortions still take place there, others scrap together the money they need to head over the water to get the help that those in England, Scotland and Wales take for granted up to the 24th week. In Northern Ireland it is only up to 7 weeks and only in the case of a medical necessity either for the baby or the mother's well being.



Tomorrow the Alliance and Green parties will be joined opposing this amendment by Sinn Féin, who say they are "not in favour of abortion" but believe that termination should be available where a pregnant woman's life was in danger. This amendment seems to take things back even further than that, which can happen with knee jerk reactionary bids to stop something just for the sake of it.

Nobody should be enslaved by ignorance or poverty is part of the Lib Dems very being and that is what this amendment is going to do. Enslave Northern Irish women not only in ignorance and poverty but also in fear.

It is time that the MLAs cared more about the lives of those born. Even if that means allowing same sex couples in stable relationships to adopt, like single LGBT people can (due to another badly thought out amendment). Instead they hastily work to try and protect the status quo when there is a need and desire for change in a growing number.

There are of course some who believe that "Every Sperm is Sacred" and that the progress of such along the fallopian tube is an hindrance to is an intention to bring about the end of the life of an unborn child. So while this rather badly worded amendment is debated will anyone question Boots, Tesco et al stocking condoms, or them being given out free at gay venues as a way that becomes illegal under said amendment.

In the meantime, here is a preview of the points made in tomorrow's debate from the DUP side of the chamber.

How can Hay retain confidence?

The announcement from another MLA that he is going to join the street protests against the removal of the Union Flag, when both the leader of the Unionist leaders have called for a suspension of such protests, is upsetting.

The fact that the MLA is question also serves as Speaker of the Assembly is a matter of confidence. Not only does that mean that he is going against the expressed desire of the leader of the party he was elected under but his position as speaker in which he has to act as the neutral voice concerning the chamber and behaviour of the MLAs is now thrown into doubt.

William Hay in action as Speaker

The decision of William Hay to announce that he will be attending these protests from now may actually throw the entire Assembly and devolution into jeopardy. Indeed it does throw into the ring the possibility that the DUP are actually setting the Assembly and a shared future up to fail at the moment. It isn't just Hay who is defying Peter Robinson and joining the street protests, some of which are peaceful, but it is the others which are not that is the concern.

As someone who is trained in street preaching I know that you can set up anywhere on the Queen's highway as long as you do not cause an obstruction. The irony of a lot of these street protests is that they do obstruct the Queen's highways night in night out. They are affecting businesses and charities not just here in Northern Ireland but further afield. We learnt last night that the volunteers coming into Childline for one were less than normal affecting the ability of that charity to answer the calls of needy children. There are other charities that have volunteer phone operators in the city centre who must also be suffering in this way.

But Hay himself is stepping into the controversy. There will now be doubts that he can adjudicate over any debate into this issue or any other contentious issue going forward. With his utterances this morning he has lost the confidence of a great many people that his is capable of serving as speaker, especially at a time such as this when tensions are running high.

Here is what the Assembly's website says about the role of the speaker:

"Members must be confident of the impartiality of the Speaker and this is achieved through the operation of a number of conventions. He does not participate or vote in any debates in the Assembly, he does not become involved in party politics, nor does he comment on Northern Ireland political matters or on issues of Government policy. When speaking on behalf of the Assembly, the Speaker confines himself to matters relating to the operation of the Assembly. Similarly, he will only make statements to the press on factual or procedural matters relating to the Assembly."

 Judge for yourself if William Hay can maintain that confidence.

Hillary comes as do the death threats

Today Northern Ireland is welcoming Hillary Clinton.

The first time she turned up death threats were a common occurrence to our elected representatives and other people who had got on the wrong side of the paramilitaries. Therefore it is with shame that all three levels of local representative today have announced that they have received death threats.

The Alliance MP for East Belfast Naomi Long spoke very calmly on The Nolan Show this morning. She was talking about those who had taken to the streets claiming that their rights were being chipped away at, but then came the telling statement:

"My right to life is also protected in law. But it is being played fast and loose with today"

 People claiming that they will fight for their rights while denying the right to live at home, or visit someone's own office is an attack on rights.

After Naomi the leader of the Sinn Féin group on Belfast City Council, Cllr Jim McVeigh, said that both he and North Belfast MLA Gerry Kelly has also received death threats.

The First Minister has this time reacted with alacrity in issuing a response:

"Such threats are an affront to democracy and an attack on us all. As someone who in the past has been visited many times by the police to be told of death threats issued against me, I know how difficult and testing a time this is.  My thoughts and prayers are very much with Naomi at this time and I would call upon all concerned not to allow themselves to be used by those who have very sinister motives.  Regardless of political difference, public representatives should not be attacked or threatened in anyway."

All death threats against the people's elected representatives are repugnant. They are an attack on our democracy as well as an attack on the people who voted for those representatives.

This morning the leader in The Belfast Telegraph appears on the front page under the headline "Today we all vote for the Alliance Party". Today we also stand for democracy, the rule of law and the right of our elected representatives to go about their business free of intimidation and threat. The ballot box and peaceful protest and discourse are where we should make out points.

We need to end the bullying on social media.

We need to end condemnations of the violence which end with a but. The but negates everything before it as it is given half heartedly.

It is time for a recall of Stormont. There has been a further escaltaion not a calming of the tension since yesterday. We the people of Northern Ireland cannot wait until Monday morning for our politicians to discuss this matter, there is a weekend in between and that is a bad time to leave things in limbo.

UKIP now has an MLA

In much the same way that UKIP managed to get short lived first representation in the House of Commons and also its three members in the House of Lords so it now has a Member of the Legislative Assembly sitting at Stormont.

David McNarry now of UKIP

Nigel Farage tweeted yesterday "Off to Stormont tomorrow and looking forward to welcoming David McNarry as UKIP's first MLA". So the former Ulster Unionist MLA would appear to set to become the first member of UKIP in any of the devolved Assemblies.

McNarry is a former UUP party whip and ran for the leadership in 2005 when Reg Empey won and he pooled poorly. He was removed as Vice Chair of the Assemblies Education Committee by then leader Tom Elliott, after going to the press about talks with the DUP. He was to have had the whip suspended for a period of nine months but when new leader Mike Nesbitt took over he did envision a return of the whip even after the period of suspension. So in a week when the whole debate about the UUP sleepwalking into unionist unity flares up again one of the earlier whistle blowers is making his own news.

Bizarrely his defection to UKIP comes in the one jurisdiction of the UK that has land boundaries with another European Union member that his new party wants out to step out of. The amount of cross border trade and employment especially in our border regions can only be harmed by a United Kingdom outside of the agreements of the European Union. Yet this is the party that David McNarry has chosen to cosy up to. Also if he has to the £ page as part of UKIPs campaign to safe the pound would have have to avoid any local shops that say €uros accepted here. Just think he couldn't buy a paper at Belfast Central or use all manner of stores.

Bob Spink the only Member of Parliament that UKIP had following his defection from the Conservatives in 2008 only stayed with the party less than five months (including the summer recess) so we wait and see if Mr McNarry lasts as long as a representative of UKIP here in Northern Ireland.

The people of Strangford now after the Iris Rosbinson scandals have a MLA who wants them out of Europe, the leader of the party he has defected from, an Alliance member who cannot bring himself to vote for marriage equality and three members of the DUP representing them.

David Ford issues apology for Monday

The leader of the Alliance Party David Ford has issued an apology following the way only half his party voted in line with the party policy on marriage equality on Monday and one actually voted against.

I would also like to apologise to anybody who was unhappy with the outcome of the vote on the Assembly motion on equal marriage. I recognise that many people, particularly those in the LGBT community, are disappointed that not all Alliance MLAs voted in support of the motion. At the September meeting of our Party Council, an overwhelming majority of 81% voted for our policy in support of equal marriage, with robust legislative recognition of the right of churches, faith groups and clergy to opt out of conducting such marriages if that is their wish. It is therefore the formal policy of the party.

Monday's vote reflects the fact that this has been a difficult issue for some party members and elected representatives. The Party will consider the decisions made by its Assembly Members through an internal process, but regardless of last Monday's vote the party policy will remain unchanged.

Notwithstanding what happened on Monday, the party will continue to promote support for its policy at every opportunity, and efforts will continue to persuade those inside the party who have their own concerns with the policy and those in wider society who are opposed to equal marriage.