COMMITTEE ON THE
PREPARATION FOR GOVERNMENT

Friday 1 September 2006

Members in attendance for all or part of proceedings:
The Chairman, Mr Jim Wells
Mr Alex Attwood
Dr Esmond Birnie
Mr Michael Ferguson
Ms Patricia Lewsley
Mrs Naomi Long
Mr Kieran McCarthy
Mr Nelson McCausland
Mr Alan McFarland
Mr Michael McGimpsey
Mr Philip McGuigan
Mr Alban Maginness
Lord Morrow
Mr Dermot Nesbitt
Mr Edwin Poots

The Committee met at 10.03 am.

(The Chairman (Mr Wells) in the Chair.)

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Welcome to the twenty-seventh meeting of the Committee. All parties are represented, so I will announce the arrangements. As usual, there will be a break at 12.20 pm. Lunch will be brought in and we will break for 15 minutes. I encourage members to bring their lunch back to the table as we continue the meeting. Feeling a wee bit like a voice in the wilderness, I ask everyone to switch off their mobile phones — I am confident that somebody will fail to do it.

We will go through the various delegations.

Mr Poots: This morning, Mr McCausland will have to be Ian Paisley Jnr. I am not doing that two weeks in a row; I will be Dr McCrea.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is there a third DUP representative?

Mr Poots: Lord Morrow will be here in due course.

Mr McFarland: Mr Nesbitt is Mr Kennedy for today, Mr McGimpsey is Mr McNarry, and I am myself.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mrs Long?

Mrs Long: Mr McCarthy will be here for Mr Ford.

Ms Lewsley: I am here for Mr Durkan; Mr Attwood is here on behalf of Dr Farren; and Mr Maginness will be here at about 11.00 am for Dr McDonnell.

Mr Ferguson: Mr McGuigan and I are representing Mr Murphy and Ms Gildernew. We have not worked out who is who.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Will there be a third representative?

Mr Ferguson: No, not today.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): I remind members that the quorum is seven. Please do the maths before you leave the table.

Does anyone have any comments on the minutes of the meeting of 25 August? I spotted one mistake, and I am sure you all did as well: “Corey” should be spelt “Cory”. The spelling in the minutes was taken from a website that spelt it wrong.

Ms Lewsley: I note in the minutes that the proposer is identified if the proposal does not find consensus, but when a proposal is agreed, there is no mention of either the proposer or the seconder.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is a pity that we are raising this issue at the twenty-seventh meeting of the Committee.

Ms Lewsley: I had not noticed it before.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is an interesting point. That is the way it has always been done. What do members think about that system? I do not think that we can go back now and amend 27 sets of minutes. Hansard will record who suggested the proposal, which is not always the proposer, but at least you get a hint as to who brought it up.

Ms Lewsley: I just wondered why there is a difference.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): We could change it from now on. What do members think? Can we have our first consensus of the morning?

Mr Poots: It has obviously been proposed.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): It has been proposed by Ms Lewsley.

Mr McFarland: Chairman, can you just refresh us?

Ms Lewsley: In the minutes, where there has been agreement on a proposal, the proposer is not mentioned. However, if a proposal falls, the person who proposed it is mentioned. On the last page of the minutes, Alban and Naomi are mentioned because they made proposals on which there was no consensus, but for previous proposals on which there was agreement, the proposer is not mentioned.

Mr McFarland: In previous minutes the proposer was mentioned, regardless of whether the proposal stood or fell. Were these the only two proposals on the day? Did we have others that were proposed and agreed? In previous minutes, a pattern was followed.

Mr Poots: When I proposed that all paramilitaries disband, the minutes did not say who the proposer was.

Ms Lewsley: That was agreed.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): The minutes simply say, “It was agreed”. In the interests of consistency, from now on we can agree that the names of the proposers of agreed proposals be recorded in future minutes.

Members indicated assent.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Let us hope that we trigger that consensus on many occasions. Is everyone happy with the minutes?

Members indicated assent.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): We move on to the discussion on culture and confidence-building measures. The protocol is that we ask each party to speak for up to five minutes. There may be some overlap here to combine the issues. There is a sufficient distinction between confidence building and culture to allow them to be discussed as separate items. There is some overlap but not enough to take them as a single item. I hope that members have come prepared on that basis. As usual, we start with the Alliance Party, followed by the DUP, and so forth.

Mrs Long: As we said last week, the Alliance Party is unclear as to why confidence building and culture are being raised under the subject of preparation for Government. We do not see where community confidence fits in, other than with the political structures. However, we have given it some consideration and, in this specific context, the major confidence issues in the community are: first, the threat of violence and intimidation; and secondly, the willingness of politicians to work together under the structures that have been outlined and agreed to make politics in Northern Ireland successful. We want to focus our presentation on those two issues.

The ending of all paramilitary activity is the most significant contribution that could be made to raising public confidence. Last week’s discussions and consensus indicated that that would be agreed as an important step forward. The community must be confident that there will be no threats, violence or intimidation. Individuals, as well as communities, must have that confidence. That is a key measure that the Committee needs to be clear about in order to move this process forward.

After our discussions last week, the DUP represent­atives on the Committee stated that they would not go into Government with “them” — Sinn Féin. That statement raised significant concerns in the Alliance Party about the seriousness of this entire process and the seriousness of the DUP. I understand that the term used on previous occasions was that “the conditions were not right”, but last week, I believe, the DUP categorically stated that it will not go into Government with Sinn Féin. If the community is to have confidence that the Committee’s work is of any value, if it is to believe that we are trying to move forward, and if elected representatives are to support communities by trying to make progress at the micro-level, it is important that people are prepared to commit to the process of building confidence openly and honestly.

To make progress on those two issues in preparation for Government would be the most significant contribution to building community confidence.

Mr McCausland: First, the DUP sees confidence building and cultural issues as scoping exercises. The function of the Committee is to scope and map out what needs to be done on those matters. Secondly, the DUP also believes that many of those issues are central to the long-term future of Northern Ireland because they have a key role to play in building community cohesion. Thirdly, those issues are complex, and it would not be possible to deal with them in detail over two sessions in one day; all that we can do is scope them out.

While accepting those points and reiterating what has already been said about the vagueness of the term “confidence building”, nevertheless, for several reasons, confidence-building measures must be included in any political settlement. Unionists believe that the confidence that has been worn down by the operation of the Belfast Agreement needs to be rebuilt. There is also a need to ensure that the unionist community feels that it is treated as equally and equitably by Government and the political process as nationalist communities have been. If we are to see two stable communities dealing with each other as equals, co-existing and working together, the process of confidence building is necessary.

Many of the issues that relate to confidence in the unionist community have been dealt with during other sittings of the Committee. Issues that are connected to criminality, paramilitarism, and so on, have already been dealt with, and I do not wish to go over those again today.

However, we can discuss mechanisms that are needed to provide equality in areas in which the nationalist community has seen better treatment. We can also discuss areas that can help in the process of ensuring equal treatment. For example, some isolated unionist communities along the border have suffered greatly not only throughout the troubles but, in some cases, they have been subjected to ethnic cleansing. Those communities now require support to rebuild and develop their infrastructure. We believe that special consideration and funding streams should be brought forward into those areas in the same way that they were brought into nationalist areas in the past. Those unionist communities face particular problems at this time.

10.15 am

Work is needed in the education sector to eliminate the chill factor for students from a unionist background so that they feel comfortable and confident at Northern Ireland’s universities.

British passports should be available to those born in the Republic of Ireland after 1941. Currently, they are available only to those who apply for British citizenship, whereas Irish passports are available automatically, at no extra cost, to those in Northern Ireland who view themselves as Irish.

The voluntary sector will have a significant role in community planning and other issues in the future. There is a need for a major Government review of that sector. The figures, which I shall table, show a huge imbalance in the workforces in all the main voluntary sector organisations in Northern Ireland — for example, the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA), the Community Foundation for Northern Ireland, the Educational Guidance Service for Adults (EGSA), the Rural Community Network and Co-operation Ireland. The remits of those organisations cover all of Northern Ireland, and they should reflect the wider community that they serve. That is not the case.

What have those organisations done about that? Has the issue been identified? I do not believe that it is a case of discrimination in their employment practices. Perhaps it is simply a measure of the fact that there is a greater infrastructure in the community sector in nationalist areas, and this is a simple and effective — if crude — way of demonstrating clearly and irrefutably that imbalance. That matter must be addressed, and the DUP has submitted papers on the issue to the Government. I am happy to table that paper today.

Young people deserve special support. In several areas of Northern Ireland, there is a weakness in the resources allocated to unionist communities for youth provision. I can table figures to demonstrate that and to show that there is a need. It is not simply a matter of resources; it concerns the extent, nature and quality of work, as well as training for youth workers. Quite often, in the unionist community, that training is not viewed in the same way as it is in the nationalist community. There are two sectors of youth work, one statutory and the other voluntary, and the differences between them result in a lower level of provision in unionist areas.

The issue of parading has, to some extent, been dealt with already. It goes to the very heart of the unionist community, where the Orange Order is a core element, whether people welcome it or not. Unionist rights in that regard are particularly important.

Those are some of the areas that the DUP wants to examine today. My five minutes are up, so I will draw to a close.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Thank you, Mr McCausland. I am glad to say that the five-minute issue has never been a problem in this Committee. You suggested that you had papers to distribute. Are members content that that be organised this morning?

I see no opposition to that. We encourage parties to make their documents available. Perhaps staff could distribute the documents, and members will have a chance to ask questions later.

Mr Ferguson: Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Ar dtús, ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá i mo theanga féin.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am sorry, Mr Ferguson, we have a problem. We have no facility for translation.

Mr Ferguson: Ná bac leis. I will do that anyway.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am sorry to be difficult. Is the Committee happy enough that Mr Ferguson translates what he is saying into English?

Mr McGimpsey: We all speak English. Irish, for Mr Ferguson — as for most people — is a second language. We are here to do business, and I should have thought that in the interests of efficiency, he should be able to speak to us in English.

Mr Nesbitt: I support that, Chairman. The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages refers to the question of “need”; there is no need to speak Irish here this morning, since we all speak English.

Mr McCausland: Language is about communication, and in this case communication is much more suited to English.

Mr McCarthy: As long as it is a short introductory piece rather than a long gospel, we can thole it.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Ferguson, is this to be an introductory paragraph in Irish or an entire presentation in Irish followed by an entire translation?

Mr Ferguson: It is an introductory paragraph, but it is introductory comments off the top of my head. I could do the whole presentation in Irish and then in English if I chose. However, the objection to the Irish language goes to the core of the issue.

Chairman, you said that the five-minute maximum has never been an issue in the Committee. I do not intend to go over the five minutes in either English or Irish.

Mrs Long: The quickest way forward will be to proceed.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): In plenary sittings, the Speaker would normally rule that it be a short intro­ductory paragraph, subsequently translated. Hansard can deal with that, but the Committee does not have simultaneous translation facilities for members.

Mr Ferguson: Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mar a bhí mé ag rá, ba mhaith liom a bheith ábalta labhairt i mo theanga féin, mar sílim go bhfuil sin riachtanach ó thaobh cultúir agus teanga de. Le linn na mblianta, fuair daoine bás, bualadh iad agus cuireadh i bpríosún iad ar son na teanga, agus dar le Sinn Féin go bhfuil sé riachtanach go bhfuil an ceart ag daoine Gaeilge a labhairt agus go bhfuil sin riachtanach do theanga agus do chultúr an oileáin seo agus do rialtas sa tír seo. Tá áthas an domhain orm labhairt i nGaeilge anois agus labhairt i mBéarla ar ball.

I have merely made a couple of opening remarks in Irish. Irish is a living language across this island. It is not a minority language; it is the living language of the people of the island. Throughout the years, people have been killed, imprisoned and attacked because of the language. If we want to recognise identity and culture, it is important that the status of the Irish language be recognised as being central to our identity. We do not want to impose it on anyone, but we would like an acknowledgement of its importance.

As for the broader issues, Sinn Féin believes that there has been useful discussion and debate —

Mr McFarland: Chairman, the tradition in the Assembly has been that there is a right to speak in Irish, but that immediately afterwards, the member should repeat the same speech in English so that we can all understand. Can Mr Ferguson confirm that that is what is now happening?

Mr Ferguson: Yes. I said that I would do that.

Mr McFarland: Thank you. I was just confirming that you had translated verbatim from Irish into English.

Mr Ferguson: You are welcome, Alan.

Sinn Féin believes that there has been useful discussion and debate among the parties in these meetings on rights, equality and safeguards within the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. In addressing the sections on confidence building and culture, the discussions over the past few weeks should emphasise to all of us the need for a fresh start. Political grand­standing continues to damage the pace of progress that could be achieved and to which people of every community are entitled if their rights are to be upheld. The single most compelling contribution to confidence building challenges us all: to ensure that the political institutions are restored without any further delay. That is the surest guarantee we have of being able to tackle the many issues that affect daily life regardless of our community or religious affiliation.

There is a need to adhere to the principles of full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights. There must be freedom from discrimination and parity of esteem for all citizens. We come from a past in which Irish Catholics were not second-class citizens, but non-citizens. That status meant that any public display of culture — a Gaelic Athletic Association top, a religious medal, even an Irish name — risked a violent response. In our new, rights-based society, cultural diversity must be respected and difference celebrated. The challenge for us all will to be ensure that traditionally marginalised groups, such as Travellers, and new citizens, whether refugees or immigrants, are included in that endeavour.

Irish is a living language across the island, and speakers must have the same rights as those available to speakers of Welsh and Scots Gaelic. To underpin these cultural rights, we require an Irish language Act, with language rights incorporated into a bill of rights and overseen by an Irish language commissioner.

Sinn Féin wants the British Government to ratify the additional clauses of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages that are related to the promotion of language in public life, as well as a requirement for British Government Departments to communicate through the medium of Irish when requested, including the availability of Government publications in Irish. The British Government could implement such basic rights and entitlements now, because they are rights and entitlements, as is an end to discrimination. That needs to be done within the terms of the Good Friday Agreement.

A Chathaoirligh, tá mé críochnaithe anois. Sin a bhfuil agamsa le rá ag an nóiméad seo.

Those are my opening remarks in relation to both matters.

Mr McCausland: On a point of order, Mr Chairman. I thought that we were dealing confidence building first, followed by culture. Our discussion on cultural matters is still to come.

Mr Ferguson: I am happy to listen. In my opening remarks, I said that I would cover the generalities of both topics.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have previously conducted business in this way. Do you want to come back on the cultural issue?

Mr Ferguson: No, I am happy enough. I am sure that you will let me pick up on the discussion if I need to.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): We did agree to discuss the two issues separately, but there is will be some drifting in and out of the territory.

Ms Lewsley, will your contribution be in Irish or English?

Ms Lewsley: My contribution will be in English, and I forgive you, Mr Chairman, for not going around the table in alphabetical order.

Mr McFarland: Sinn Féin has always come before the SDLP.

Ms Lewsley: Alphabetically, “SDLP” comes before “SF”.

Mr McFarland: But “Sinn” comes before “Social”.

Mr Poots: In the phone book, initialisms usually come first.

A Member: It may be different in Irish. [Laughter.]

Mr McFarland: Or the Ulster Democratic Unionist Party. [Laughter.]

Ms Lewsley: I want to ask the parties how they define “confidence building”. Eight years on from the Good Friday Agreement, we are not where we should be. In the past, we have seen how some parties have been involved in side deals and sweeteners, which undermines confidence. We have seen how one party has been given a side deal or a sweetener, and subsequently, another party has had to be given one. A precedent was set, and now the whole process of side deals has got out of control.

At the time of the comprehensive agreement, on 9 December 2004, Peter Robinson announced that the agreement was supplemented by over 100 letters and understandings from the British Government. These were never published, and when the SDLP asked for details of the 100 letters and understandings under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the British Government said they could not give us any information on them because it would damage relations with the Irish Government. Despite all that, on 24 December 2004, Gerry Adams welcomed the comprehensive agreement and said that it was a remarkable achievement. Like many other parties, we want to know what the 100 deals and secret understandings were, and whether Sinn Féin knows what they were, considering that it welcomed the document.

With regard to the wider political process and confidence building among parties, it must be asked how parties can go into negotiation with other parties that have cut side deals for themselves with the British Government somewhere else.

The best way to build confidence is to get the institutions up and working. People at community level are fed up because we are not doing all the work that we were elected to do. That in itself creates a lack of confidence with the public about the political process.

I agree about the need to build community confidence. Naomi spoke about the need for communities to be free from paramilitary violence and intimidation. I agree with Nelson that there are gaps in support and funding for communities across Northern Ireland, which is why we have discussed equality on the objective basis of need. We want to ensure that those who need help, whether in education or at a community level, receive it equitably.

I propose that there be full restoration of the Assembly and the institutions; that Sinn Féin sign up to policing and the rule of law; and that the DUP work the institutions and the agreement without delay.

10.30 am

The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is a strong proposal, to put it mildly, in the middle of a discussion on confidence building. Is that a formal proposal?

Ms Lewsley: Yes.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): There might be some comment on that.

Mr McGimpsey: From the unionist perspective, the building of confidence in the political process is a key issue. There have been three attempts at devolution, and each attempt has failed because republicans refused to do what it was clearly understood that they would do in accordance with the terms and principles of the Belfast Agreement. Unionists must be confident that the local political process will deal with the issues.

Unionists have the safety net of direct rule by British Ministers, which, from a unionist point of view, is not the worst-case scenario, a case of a bird in the hand being worth two in the bush. Will unionists take another chance, given that direct rule — with some notable exceptions — is reasonably benign? Will they risk further upheaval and uncertainty, given that they do not know what will emerge from the process, or will they stick with what they have now? If devolution is restored and the Assembly and Executive are reinstated, unionists will need to be convinced that the institutions have legs and will last for a reasonable, if not indefinite, time.

In working-class unionist areas — commonly described as loyalist areas —poverty is a major issue. The Belfast Agreement has not done much for those areas. In some parts of inner-city Belfast, and in areas outside the city, loyalist, unionist working-class areas have had no appreciable gains from the process, apart from the fact that the killings have ended. Those areas see the economic benefits flowing to other parts of Northern Ireland and little flowing their way. That is a key issue.

The perception in those areas is that the people living there experience institutionalised discrimination. If we have to, we can cite examples where people believe that they have been deliberately short-changed. Poverty in those unionist working-class areas, some of it extreme, must be addressed as part of any confidence-building measures.

Naomi spoke about the threat of violence and intimidation, which brings me to the issue of policing. At the time of the comprehensive agreement, Sinn Féin, the DUP and the two Governments agreed that certain steps would be taken on policing. We now need to know where all the parties stand on this issue. For example, the agreement referred to Sinn Féin member­ship of the new Policing Board, the establishment of a shadow Assembly Committee to consider the modalities for the devolution of policing and justice — and, within a month, to reach agreement on those modalities — and consequent legislation being enacted at Westminster.

I know that this has been dealt with in other areas, but the refusal of republicans to fully support the police and policing is another matter that appears to affect the judgement of the unionist community. That community feels that if Sinn Féin is not prepared to support the police, we are not much further on than we were three or four years ago when devolution fell. The unionist community also feels that once again, we are basing a process on Sinn Féin’s good intentions. There is no consensus within the unionist community to base anything on the good intentions of Sinn Féin: something more substantial is required.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): A series of proposals have been tentatively made. Mr McCausland made some that fall entirely within the confidence-building discussion, and Mr Ferguson made proposals that are more to do with culture. Ms Lewsley made the mother of all proposals, which does not fit neatly into either confidence building or culture, but which I am told is in order. Some members may wish to comment on that one, so we will leave it to the end.

Mr McCausland, I would like to tease out some of your suggestions. You mentioned the small minority communities in the border areas and your perception of the imbalance in the employment patterns in certain organisations. Are those proposals, or are they your views on the issues?

Mr McCausland: The DUP proposes that a fund be created for the isolated unionist communities along the border that have suffered as a result of ethnic cleansing over the years. The DUP also proposes that British passports be available for those who were born in the Republic of Ireland after 1941. A further proposal is that work be done with the universities to eliminate the chill factor that exists for young people from a unionist background. That is something for the relevant Depart­ment and the universities themselves to deal with.

I confess that I skipped the last page of my presentation, so I will make one other minor point: there should be a non-lottery fund for those who refuse lottery money on moral grounds. It discriminates against what may be termed “the evangelical Protestant community”, which refuses to take lottery money. That is a particular problem in rural areas.

The disparities in the voluntary sector and in youth-service provision were things the DUP was merely highlighting.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Naomi Long wishes to speak. If members wish to make any other proposals on confidence building, I ask them to do so at this stage. We will debate them and put them to the meeting, and then move on to cultural issues.

Mr Nesbitt: I know that you have previously taken composite discussion rather than strict segregation. I have some comments to make on what Michael Ferguson said, but you said that that falls under culture more than confidence.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): I was referring to his proposals, rather than his contribution.

Mr Nesbitt: So long as moving on does not preclude me from commenting.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will come back for a full series of presentations on the cultural issue.

Mr Nesbitt: I want to comment on remarks that other people have made — we have followed that procedure before.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is entirely in order. Do you wish to say something after Naomi Long has spoken?

Mr Nesbitt: I do not mind.

Mrs Long: I want clarification on some points. I have a specific point to make on Nelson McCausland’s proposal of a fund for isolated unionist communities along the border. The Committee agreed by consensus last week that funding should be addressed on the basis of need alone. If the Committee agreed Mr McCausland’s proposal, it would be contrary to what was agreed previously; we would be considering funding on the basis that those were isolated unionist communities.

The individuals concerned may get funding on the basis of need, and I would not quibble about that. However, why would the Committee suggest a proposal that specifies the political aspirations of individuals when it has already agreed that it should target resourcing on the basis of need alone? I have other comments to make on the presentation, but my question is specifically on that proposal.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): It would be helpful if Mr McCausland would comment at this stage.

Mr McCausland: The border fund would be for the border communities that have suffered as a result of ethnic cleansing, and it so happens that all of those are unionist communities.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Nesbitt, do you wish to comment?

Mr Nesbitt: Michael Ferguson’s point reflects the mantra that Sinn Féin repeats at each and every turn. Sinn Féin is the only party in Northern Ireland that keeps on about rights, equality, policing and justice for the people of the “North of Ireland”, as it euphemistically calls it. Michael Ferguson said that it looks for equality of civil, social, cultural and political rights and that those rights are to be upheld.

At the outset of this series of meetings I pointed out that in these discussions about preparation for Government and confidence building, governance and governing refer to an understanding and an observance of human rights. Those are the underlying bases of liberal democracies. I have asked Michael Ferguson before whether he accepts the international standards of human rights. Hansard will show that he said, “Yes, but not to be prescribed by it”, which really means “yes and no”. In other words, he gave a non-answer.

All I am saying to Sinn Féin is that I do not wish to deny any person equality of civil, social, cultural and political rights. However, it must be clearly understood that those rights are to be delivered in the context of Northern Ireland’s being legally a region of the United Kingdom, which is the country in which we sit at this moment. I do not ram that down anyone’s throat. Its full title is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and it is commonly called the UK or Britain or what have you.

Giving just one example, Sinn Féin and Gerry Adams often refer to the basic right of Northern people who have been elected to represent their electorate in the Dáil. No aspect of international law justifies such a right. It is not a basic right of people who are resident in Northern Ireland; it is not even an accepted norm. If we want to be confident about our future, we need to understand what rights we are talking about.

Sinn Féin says that, as unionists, we have to get our head round our stance. I retort that Sinn Féin has to get its head round the rights and standards that are expected in a normal, liberal democracy in twenty-first century Europe. Sinn Féin does not constantly peddle those rights, but it peddles others. Peddling those other rights undermines everyone’s confidence. It undermines the confidence not only of unionism, but of republicanism — republicans feel that they should have something to which unionists feel they are not entitled. Whenever demands are being made that are in excess of what is the normal standard, the feeling that a community has when it is trying to be at ease with itself is undermined.

I conclude on that comment, but I repeat that, as a unionist, I support equality of civil, social, cultural and political rights, the very words which Michael Ferguson used. However, we must understand those rights and, when we understand them, we must observe them.

Mr McGuigan: It is important that any future Government should prioritise the issue of poverty on the objective basis of need. The DUP, and to a lesser extent the UUP, propose that poverty should be tackled through special treatment. They argue for a two-tier sectarian approach to social and economic deprivation. That should not be the way in which any future government in the North tackles poverty.

10.45 am

Mr Ferguson: I want to comment on Nelson’s contribution. Unionists — and especially the DUP — peddle the flawed notion that community structures mean that there is no deprivation or poverty. The issue was debated on Lisburn City Council, and the DUP complained vociferously about the use of the Robson indices. DUP councillors argued that areas identified by the Robson indices as suffering worst from deprivation and poverty were nationalist areas.

New evaluations were conducted, and the Noble index was introduced, which reinforced the findings of the Robson index. The DUP then started to talk about the ideological construct of “weak community infrastructure” — if nationalists had a community infrastructure, it somehow suggested that nationalists were affluent. That is nonsense. I have had a quick look through the two documents here, and it is clear that there are huge disparities. The document deals with 180 jobs and a specific area of employment; it does not cover the wider area of the Six Counties. Statistics from the Department for Social Development and the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency clearly show that 80% of all neighbourhood renewal areas — that is, the most deprived areas — are nationalist areas; there is no getting away from that.

This debate, and the way in which this problem has been presented by my unionist colleagues, sectarianises poverty. Naomi’s point about border areas and attempts to put selective political tags on deprivation is fair enough. Sinn Féin continues to maintain that the best way to address poverty and deprivation is on the objective basis of need; the issue should not be sectarianised, as is being done here.

If Nelson, Dermot and others really want to address differentials and objective need, they must support the proposal to restore the institutions without delay. Under direct rule, there are holes in the education system, the health system, and so on. The fault lies with the DUP. That party has a chance to address objective need; it refuses to do so and gives one excuse after another.

For that reason alone, Patricia’s proposal for the immediate restoration of the institutions is useful. Although her political grandstanding may impress the press, it will not impress me. I am happy enough to support that part of the proposal. Sinn Féin has always been happy enough to support tackling poverty on the objective basis of need.

This morning, I spoke about the importance of rights for minority languages and extra clauses being inserted into the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, and about all that being implemented by the British Government. Rights should not threaten anybody. The issue of universities being cold houses has been raised, and we need to elaborate on that. The Irish language has been challenged in universities here. Why is the Irish language such a threat? Why was the Irish language a major issue when this debate opened this morning?

With regard to developing rights and best practice here and across this island, we should do it. We should not be held back because Europe has not done it. Concerning the right to speak in the Oireachtas, the Good Friday Agreement is an all-Ireland, international, binding agreement. I am an Irish citizen. I see no reason why I, or Mr Nesbitt for that matter, should not be able to address issues in the Oireachtas or anywhere else. It is my right as an Irish citizen. It is the right of people on this island, of whatever political perspective, to do so.

As to dealing with global issues, such as waste management or energy, we should maximise the value of an all-Ireland economy and work together on an all-Ireland basis in whatever forum is available to us, whether here or in the Oireachtas. The sooner we do that, the better.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): One of the joys of chairing this Committee is that there are never any pregnant pauses. [Laughter].

This debate has provoked a lot of interest.

Mr McCausland: If he is concerned about poverty, Mr McGuigan might want to encourage the IRA to hand back the Northern Bank money. So much money was involved that a lot of poverty could be eradicated. However, that is not anticipated.

My main point concerns a serious and central issue. As soon as unionists dare to raise an issue about inequality, differentials, discrimination or disadvantage that affects their community, Sinn Féin gets up on its high horse and suddenly it is a sectarian issue. The figures that I quoted this morning are taken from reports of the Equality Commission. Is the Equality Commission a sectarian body? Some people might say so.

These are standard figures. The facts are there. The Robson report, ‘Relative Deprivation in Northern Ireland’, was flawed, because Robson did not deal with all the aspects of disadvantage. That is why Robson was eventually ditched, and why the Noble report, ‘Measures of Deprivation in Northern Ireland’, is now Noble with amendments. Not all of the issues carried the same weight in calculating the Noble index of multiple deprivation. There were many aspects of disadvantage that should have been included and were not. One of the key issues for the unionist community is educational disadvantage.

Important issues have to be brought forward. In particular, let us nail this lie from Sinn Féin — and it is a lie — that it is a sectarian matter as soon as a unionist mentions something about disadvantage. My community and I have the same right to equality as anyone else. If it is good enough for someone else it is good enough for the community that I represent; I will not allow it to be discriminated against simply because members of Sinn Féin get on their high horse about it.

I also wanted to pick up on the university issue. There is a need to elaborate on that. It is clear from the universities’ own figures — not some sectarian figures dreamed up by someone for propaganda reasons — that there is an issue regarding the ethos of those universities. Last year the students’ union at Queen’ s University disobeyed guidance given to it. It breached the equality policy of its own university and, in that case, it is an affiliated part of the university.

There are all sorts of issues that I would be more than happy to elaborate on. As regards spending on youth work, my own district electoral area of Oldpark in Belfast spent £267,000 on full-time and part-time youth workers; that £267,000 went in its entirety to youth clubs in nationalist areas, despite the fact that one third of the children in that area are from the Protestant community. That sort of disadvantage is unacceptable, and to highlight that is not sectarian. The sectarianism is in the fact that it happened in the first place.

I am more than happy to debate those key issues. Why is the Irish language seen as a threat? Perhaps we will return to that under the heading of “Culture”, but not now.

Mrs Long: From the presentations and follow-up comments, there are many issues that we need to examine in greater detail.

First, Michael Ferguson stated that the Irish language caused a furore when it was raised as an issue, and that it was perceived as a threat. That is not fair. The problem is caused by the politicisation of the Irish language, not the language itself. For example, there is a lack of historical recognition of the Presbyterian Church’s role in keeping the Irish language alive when it would otherwise have died out. The Irish language has been politicised and made into an exclusive cultural captive. That does not reflect the language’s history. That is what irritates people, not the language itself.

Another issue has run through some of our discussions. Nelson asked whether we want two stable communities, peacefully coexisting side by side. Well, I do not want that, and I make that quite clear. I want a single, properly integrated, community living together, but not because of some benign apartheid. That is what Nelson was basically suggesting: two segregated communities.

Much of our discussion flows from the fact that people cannot see beyond those divisions. Unless we tackle those divisions, and the assumption that our problems will be solved simply by having two separate but equal communities, we will never get to the core of Northern Ireland’s difficulties.

Michael Ferguson accused Nelson and his colleagues of being sectarian because they spoke of unionist deprivation. Nelson said that Sinn Féin reacts badly when unionists raise the issue of deprivation. What makes the discussion sectarian is Sinn Féin’s focus almost entirely on deprivation in nationalist areas, and the DUP’s focus almost entirely on deprivation in unionist areas. It is not sectarian to care about deprivation and to want to tackle it, not according to the political affiliation of the individuals affected, but according to need. Unfortunately, we are not having that conversation, because deprivation in different communities — which is real, tangible and measurable — is being used as a weapon in a political argument. Using deprivation in a political argument neither advances the cause of people suffering deprivation nor, indeed, is particularly edifying for the parties engaged in the argument.

I do not believe that anyone can challenge the accuracy of the equality figures that Nelson circulated. Last week, during our discussion on equality figures and recommendations, when members were accusing other members of discrimination, I said that simply showing a disparity in percentages in the workforce and the background population does not prove that discrimination exists; it only proves that there is a disparity.

That has been taken further to suggest that some form of discrimination exists. That is a dangerous path to tread, particularly when the figures relate to workforces of approximately 30 people and, in all cases, fewer than 100. In those situations, a single individual joining or leaving an organisation can significantly change the workforce balance by between 1% and 5%, depending on the size of the workforce. To assume that that is evidence of discrimination is wrong.

We must examine whether those trends are there for a reason and, as I said last week, tackle the issues. Nelson has rightly highlighted difficulties in the broad unionist community with regard to funding. However, it is difficult to get those groups to apply for funding. It has been our experience that the funding is not discriminatory, but applications have not been forth­coming. Last week I argued that, in all issues of equality, we should tackle the reasons and not make assumptions.

11.00 am

That lack of confidence is a problem. A discussion of these issues in relation to people being fundamentally discriminated against and disadvantaged will not help to build their confidence. We ought to encourage people to believe that if they apply for positions in any of those organisations, they are as likely as the next person to be appointed.

We must engender real confidence in communities, and work with them, so that people feel equipped and able. That must be done on the basis of need, not on some notion of sectional division.

In the university sector, there has been a tug of war. From my own time at university, I remember just how repulsive university politics were. It would be unfair to imply that universities are creating a chill factor structurally. Student-union politics, and the machinations in the union, are repugnant to many students. Having witnessed some of the nonsense that went on in student politics in my days at university, it shocks me that I ever got involved in politics.

However, to suggest that that means that people cannot attend a course and participate in university life adds to the chill factor. Leaders of the unionist community send out messages that Protestant students are not welcome in Northern Irish universities. That is very dangerous. We must highlight and tackle the problems, but to suggest that the chill factor is more widespread than it is, and to plant that seed in the minds of people who would otherwise not perceive it in that way, can add to the problem rather than address it.

We must be very careful. This issue is not exclusive to the unionist community; today we are talking about what unionist people perceive to be the problem, but I have heard similar language, attitudes and arguments from those who represent the nationalist community.

Nelson spoke about nationalist youth clubs in his area. The only solution is to have youth clubs that everyone can attend. We need to move forward on the agenda of a shared future rather than simply dividing the pot so that everyone gets less and is constantly looking across the divide, disregarding need because “we” do not want “them” to get more. If we continue down that old path, we will continue to have an unsettled society. If, on the other hand, we move forward and explore the sharing of facilities and provision on the basis of need, those issues will not exist. Fundamentally —

Mr Poots: May I make an intervention?

Mrs Long: I am finishing.

Fundamentally, we have to address that issue.

Mr Poots: I want to ask a question.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is it a point of information, Mr Poots?

Mrs Long: I have finished.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): There are quite a few products of Queen’s Students’ Union here this morning. I am going to move on to one of them: Mr Attwood. Does that bring back happy memories, Alex? Unfortunately, it was 30 years ago.

Mr Attwood: Let us not go there, Chairman.

Mr Poots: Let us not run down Queen’s any more.

Mr Attwood: I want to bring some sense of cohesion to the debate. There are good reasons to sustain border communities and establish a balance in those that are no longer as balanced as they were. I have a proposal that the DUP and Sinn Féin may be able to sign up to: that consideration should be given to aiming resources at border communities and enhancing cross-border initiatives in those areas.

There are many cross-border initiatives in various parts of the North. That is not proposed to reassure the DUP for political reasons per se, but to recognise that there is a local unit of economic, social and agricultural activity in those areas, in which communities on both sides of the border work together for mutual development.

That happens in many councils, including those in Newry and Dundalk, and in various other places such as Fermanagh. There might be consensus for a proposal that would demonstrate that border communities are a valuable part of life on the island of Ireland, and that it is useful to sustain rural life on the border.

The South of Ireland is beginning to recognise the dangers of the flight from the west of Ireland and the consequences that the denuding of the population in the west is having on the overall development of communities in that part of the world. There are good reasons to sustain the communities in border areas. They have economic, social, educational and cultural needs, and they also add to the life of people in the North. There is evidence to back up the assertion that, in some parts of the North, people from one community or the other were particularly targeted, and they left their land and their area.

A proposal on the consideration of resources to target and sustain border communities would be welcome for many reasons, including some of those highlighted by the DUP. The enhancement of cross-border initiatives in areas where they already exist — and where they could exist — would be a way to recognise that there were sectarian intentions behind the paramilitary violence that went on 30 to 40 years ago. That was presented as another effort to force Britain out of Ireland, but there was a sectarian dimension that was particularly acute in those areas. The proposal should be much broader and based on other criteria, rather than that outlined by the DUP, although there is a degree of validity in what it proposes.

Students from certain backgrounds were not going to universities in the North long before any sense of a chill factor. If there was a time when the chill factor began, it was around the time when the Chairman and I were at Queen’s University.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Was that before the Boer War?

Mr Attwood: You and I might have contributed to that chill factor — if there was one.

In the 1970s, students from a particular background were leaving the North. There were linkages with universities in Britain, and students wanted to go there. Those students’ parents felt that this was not a good place for third-level education because of the politics and community tensions at the time. Also, some parents became able to afford to send their children to Britain. That pattern was already happening — it was inevitable.

I do not think that student politics should be criticised in the way that Naomi did. For example, in the early 1980s, I would have been worried about the nature of students if they had not expressed a view on the issue of the hunger strikes.

Mrs Long: I want to clarify that I was not at university in the early 1980s; I was at school. [Laughter.]

Mr Attwood: Naomi defined student-union politics in a rather abrasive way. I am trying to explain that if she were a student in the 1980s and did not express her views, or if Jim Wells did not have a view on the issue of the hunger strikes, or if I did not have a view, we were failing in our leadership function in the student movement at Queen’s University at that time. It can be argued that student politics were fragmented and became divisive, but people should not be beaten up for taking a stand based on principles and values when people were calling out for a stand to be taken.

Student politics became uneven and unbalanced thereafter, but that situation has been corrected in the last few years. Those who manage the universities in the North have taken initiatives to encourage students to stay, so the SDLP will not support the proposal on the chill factor. Students can get better quality education here. Universities have also taken initiatives to build up shared learning institutions, in much the same way that we should be trying to build up shared political institutions and shared arrangements in every other aspect of life in the North. The proposal on the chill factor would demean the initiatives that universities have taken to build inclusive and broad-based student populations.

I understand what the DUP’s proposal is aimed at achieving. However, trust and confidence — which is what we are talking about — would be built if the DUP would say here and now that it will live with the consequences of all the equality figures that reflect all aspects of life in the North. We live with the consequences of any of the figures that reflect Protestant disadvantage or unmet need. If we are to move this debate on, it would be helpful if the DUP were to declare that it accepts and will live with the consequences of any of the equality figures when it comes to any aspect of public policy or life in the North. In that way, we will probably make some advance.

Sinn Féin does not have clean hands in this matter. I remember talking about unmet Protestant need with a prominent community worker in nationalist west Belfast. That person said that, although it was accepted that unmet Protestant need existed, unmet Catholic need had to be addressed first. It does not. Unmet Catholic or Protestant need must be addressed proportionally and on a priority basis. However, that does not mean that one community should have its needs addressed before the next community has theirs addressed.

However, to provide some reassurance that this matter is not simply about staking out some narrow ground around a handful of organisations, it would be helpful if the DUP would accept that whether unmet need is Protestant or Catholic, rural or urban, it will live with the consequences of that as far as public policy in the North is concerned.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): There are five more members who wish to speak, and I propose that we call it a day after that point because we have 11 proposals to consider. However, not all of those who are listed to speak are proposers. Those members are: Mr McGimpsey, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Poots, Mr Ferguson, and Mr McCausland. We have given this matter a fair airing, and I will call it a day after Mr McCausland has spoken.

Mr McGimpsey: I thought that this morning we were trying to identify obstacles to the reinstatement of the Executive and the Assembly. I attempted to do that as a unionist representative. The loose headings that I identified were: the political process; policing; and poverty. Those are not exclusive to unionism, but I was highlighting the difficulties that the unionist population has with the ability of the political process to deal with our problems and whether to take, once again, the step to reinstate Stormont.

Poverty-related problems and the fact that there has been no appreciable change in the quality of life and well-being for unionist communities over the past eight or 10 years are real issues. There has been peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland; the economy has never done better, and in middle-class areas, for example, the value of the houses has doubled and trebled. However, in other areas nothing has changed — everything is exactly the same.

11.15 am

That is what I was highlighting as being an obstacle from a unionist perspective. Another obstacle is policing. I want to talk about the comprehensive agreement, violence and about the need to see an end to paramilitary activity.

All Michael Ferguson wanted to talk about was the Irish language. That seems to be, from Sinn Féin’s perspective, the obstacle to the reinstatement of the institutions. Mr Ferguson talked about the Irish language and its status; he spoke in the Irish language. Of course language is an area that must be addressed, and as a sector, it was treated comparatively generously under devolution. However, there is much more to this than language and anecdotal history.

Nelson made the point about the Robson index and the Noble indicators. Robson did not work. Areas of serious deprivation in south Belfast — areas such as Taughmonagh, Annadale flats, and so on — were counted in with the Malone Road. The Robson index gave the wrong answer; it did not address the issue. Need is the ultimate principle, so you start by looking at what the need is, and then you look at how to address it. Those are the issues within unionism.

Education is another important area. The way out of poverty is through work, and the way to work is through training and education. There are a number of themes flowing through that. Those are the hurdles. When we come to talk about culture, there will be other hurdles as well. I am not quite clear where this discussion is heading. Do we want to identify the hurdles that we see as obstacles to the reinstatement of the Executive and the Assembly?

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Our report will have three basic strands: those issues that we have agreed on, those issues that we do not agree on but do not see as major impediments to devolution, and those issues that parties have highlighted as being crucial. I suspect that much of this will fall into the middle category.

We have 11 proposals that various groups feel will take forward the issue of confidence building, which is more than is usual by a long shot. Perhaps members would consider whether their proposals identify major impediments or simply raise issues that they want highlighted.

Mr Nesbitt: I have two points, one is to do with need — and I hope that Alex is not going away, as I want to address some of his comments — and the second is about language. It was Michael Ferguson who first referred to addressing need. I have always advocated addressing issues on the basis of need. From a confidence point of view, my party and I have always advocated addressing disadvantage. There is no problem with the principle; the problem is how to actually address the need.

Alex asked if the DUP could live with the consequences of the equality figures. When he went down that line, my first thought was that I could not agree with that statement — never mind the DUP; it can speak for itself — because I do not live with the consequences. We need to address the consequences, which was the point that Alex went on to make.

Alex argued that need should be addressed on a proportionate basis; again, I subscribe to that. If 60% of the unemployed are from a certain community, they should get 60% of the jobs available. The problem is that nationalists, republicans, the Government, UNISON, the Equality Commission and all and sundry assume this great mantra. Two weeks ago, Michael Ferguson referred to the unemployment differential, with Catholics being twice as likely to be unemployed. The Government had a concept that that could be addressed on a proportional basis with new TSN, which is arithmetically and statistically impossible. If twice as many Catholics as Protestants are unemployed, and you recruit from the unemployed twice the number that you do from the Protestant community, you will still have the same unemployment differential. That is a statistical fact.

At a previous meeting, Alex said that I had a narrow perspective on equality. My perspective is to try to address the issue of equality as it should be addressed from an analysis of the statistics. It is on that basis that that need should be addressed proportionately. However, in doing so, the unemployment differential is not addressed, and nationalists and republicans have never got their heads around that.

Naomi said that disparity and discrimination are different issues. Although I agree with her, I also say that I am agreeing with her because she is now agreeing with me. I am not saying that she did not agree with me before, but let us get this right. Last week, I said that in six out of the past eight years, the public sector recruited more people from the Catholic community than would have been expected, given the proportion of applicants. I did not say that that was discrimination; I said that it pointed up a difference that must be addressed. The data do not state that there is discrimination; the data state that there is a disparity or a difference.

I welcome Naomi’s saying that we have to examine those trends. I wish that the Alliance Party — and I say this genuinely — would say so publicly. It is the Ulster Unionist Party that has called for those trends to be established. I was with the Minister this week, and I might as well have been talking to the wall. Not only does the Minister not listen but his officials advise him wrongly. They do not put these arguments to him. I asked an official a question at a ministerial meeting, and he went into typical civil servant mode: if you do not want to answer the question you have been asked, answer a different one. He did not even answer the question I asked; he answered a different one.

Mr McFarland: May I just seek clarification from Dermot? My understanding is that at some stage in the past we ended up, for whatever reason, with a disparity between the number of Catholics and the number of Protestants in employment. So there is a gap. We then put in anti-discrimination measures that prevent any discrimination against any community in employment.

As I understand it — and this is my question — unless we introduce some form of positive discrimination or some system to bring Catholic employment up to the level of Protestant employment, that gap will always remain because the fact that there is a disparity will not be addressed. This myth about employment is that there is a gap that will remain unless some action is taken to redress that gap, which is a legacy of the past. Is that a correct understanding of the problem? Is that a correct analysis of the difficulty?

Mr Nesbitt: It is a difficult question to answer succinctly, and I do not mean that in a patronising way. There are two points. There is a disparity in the employment and unemployment data that was brought about statistically by the fact that the proportion of Catholics actively seeking work is greater than the proportion of Catholics actually in work. Forty per cent of the Catholic population are seeking work and yet they have only 38% of the jobs, and that creates a differential. This differential was at its lowest in the early 1970s, so it has increased since then. I see that Sinn Féin members are shaking their heads, but they will see those figures in the 1971 census. However, because the myth was peddled — and it was a myth — that discrimination in the 1990s caused the differential, the Government assumed that they would introduce anti-discrimination laws to remove that differential. The problem is that, although they brought in the most robust anti-discrimination laws anywhere in Europe, the differential still exists. At the February 2006 British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference (BIIC), the Government reported that the differential was still about 2·1. Therefore, the wrong analysis and the wrong suggested approach will not provide the solution.

Mr Attwood: Will the member accept one point of information? His entire analysis is based upon only one sector of the potential employment workforce, namely, long-term male Protestant and Catholic unemployed.

Mr Nesbitt: No. It is —

Mr Attwood: You have said repeatedly that since the early 1970s, the differential between long-term male Catholic unemployment and long-term male Protestant unemployment has been around 2·1, and that that figure has not changed very much. However, equality legislation and policies have brought about an adjustment in the figures, given that there has been a lot of movement into the workforce. For example, more Catholic women have entered the workforce, and overall Catholic participation rates, with the exception of those who are in long-term unemployment, have increased. The differential is still far from perfect, especially in middle and senior-management positions, but the core problem of the long-term employment differential has not been addressed, and much more needs to be done.

However, issues that are connected to every other potential employee or workforce sector have been addressed over the past 30 or 40 years. Do not, therefore, draw conclusions from one particular argument about the overall equality approach.

Mr Nesbitt: To a certain extent Alex does not disagree with me; he is talking about a trend in long-term unemployment. The statistics refer to unemploy­ment, not to long-term unemployment, which is a subset of the unemployed. The member is correct in saying that the situation has changed over time. Unlike my colleague from the DUP, I do not refer to a unionist phraseology; I refer to Bob Osborne and Ian Shuttleworth’s ‘Fair Employment: A Generation On’, which concluded that most of the change that the member talks about was due to educational reform, economic change in the structure of industry and certainly not discrimination, as Government said was the case in the 1990s. That was not the cause of change, and the sooner we get our heads round that, the better.

Mr Attwood: When Queen’s University was exposed for its failures in employment practice, and when a report by Beverley Jones and Fiona Cassidy revealed the policies and practices that had been put in place, Queen’s began to turn the corner.

Mr Nesbitt: I ask the member, Chairman, to not refer to Queen’s. I could give examples of my own life and work there, and I resolutely refuse to do so.

Mr Poots: I endorse the point about Queen’s, but please do not refer to it.

Mr Nesbitt: Sorry.

Mr Poots: I am endorsing your request.

Mr Nesbitt: When I look over the transcripts, I see that Mr Poots often jibes and snipes from the side. That seems to be his trait.

Mr Poots: I thought that it was funny.

Mr Nesbitt: All I am saying is that the member should not go there, because I can make the comments. That is my first point.

However, I genuinely wish that the Alliance Party would come out publicly and support the fact that the trends in disparity are addressed —

Mrs Long: Will the member take a point of information? I have not suddenly reached a road to Damascus conversion in this Committee on the matter; I have been discussing it for some considerable time. We said it publicly and privately, and it is a matter of record on Hansard that I said it last week and the previous week. There is no need to appeal to me to say it publicly — I have already done so.

Mr Nesbitt: I am glad, but I do not want to see you getting upset by my comments.

Mrs Long: I am certainly not upset by anything that you have said, Mr Nesbitt.

Ms Lewsley: It must be his body language. [Laughter.]

Mr Nesbitt: Yes, it is back to that, Patricia. Unfortunately, Hansard does not record the ambience of the contribution, merely the words.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Thank goodness.

11.30 am

Mr Nesbitt: Moving to the second point, Mr Ferguson says that rights should not threaten anyone. That is true. Why is the Irish language a threat? It should not be a threat. Rhodri Morgan, the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales, answers questions fully in Welsh. Sinn Féin stated that it wishes to have the same rights for Irish speakers in Northern Ireland that Welsh speakers have. The difference is that far more Welsh is spoken in Wales than Irish is spoken anywhere in Ireland, and one can be very Gaelic-orientated and still be a British citizen. Rhodri Morgan is a member of the Welsh Labour Party. He respects the national law and constitution. Sinn Féin may not know that it is meant to do the same; however, it does not do so. Therefore, unfortunately, Sinn Féin has used the language as a political battering ram. I see that the member is shaking his head, but that is the case. If language were put in its proper cultural context — and we will come to culture later — the schism on the language that exists in the community would not exist.

Mrs Long refers to wanting a single, integrated community. I cannot support that. There can be one community with great diversity, and I presume that that is what she means.

Mrs Long: I ask the Member for clarification. Mr Nesbitt said that he could not support me in calling for a single, united and integrated community, yet he says that we can have a single community with much diversity, which is what he assumes I mean. Is he opposed to a single, diverse community?

Mr Nesbitt: Of course not.

Mrs Long: Then why does he not agree with what I said, if that is his presumption about what I meant?

Mr Nesbitt: I was just getting clarity from Mrs Long as to what she meant. When she talks about a single community, she seems to say, or imply, that there should not be diversity. The point about a community is that it is comprised of many sub-communities, and there should be diversity. We are not looking for assimilation; people can be integrated yet totally different.

Mrs Long: That is why I said a single, integrated community. That accepts that people could be different. Any interpretation of my comments comes merely from you, Mr Nesbitt, and was not put there by anything that I said.

Mr Nesbitt: I do not want to prolong this. I asked the question. She has given the clarity, and I welcome it. It is good that we have that on the record.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will return to cultural issues later, so there will be an opportunity to raise some of those points.

Mr Poots: I want to deal with the unemployment differential, which was the previous topic. There are significantly more people from outside Northern Ireland currently employed in the Province than there are people on the unemployment register. Jobs are available for people who want them. I suspect that if people were given three months to get a job or face withdrawal of benefits, the unemployment differential would disappear quickly and many of those who are currently unemployed would be happy to take up that employment.

I am disappointed at the SDLP’s attitude. The SDLP is good at highlighting whether nationalists are underrepresented in a particular area. It was quick to jump on the police recruitment bandwagon. When Ken Maginnis suggested that fifty-fifty recruitment might be a means of resolving that issue, the SDLP was happy to support that idea and is now its greatest proponent. However, whenever unionists identify issues of concern to their community — Mr McCausland mentioned ethnic cleansing in border areas — it wishes to dilute that and to demean the proposal on it through its counterproposal.

I do not know whether Mr Attwood has spent much time around the border recently, but some people are doing very well in those areas. I am sure that when they got their revised rates bills, they were very large — commensurate with their dwellings. I suspect that those people do not need a lot of help; they are getting a huge income, a lot of which is illegitimate.

As for the universities, there is a chill factor, and it has not been adequately addressed. There is a significant problem in the school of law in Queen’s University, in particular, which will filter through in the future to the Northern Ireland judiciary. It has already permeated to the extent that there are not enough solicitors and barristers from a Protestant/unionist background.

The problem started at Queen’s University school of law and has been developing, not for years but for decades. That must be addressed. Are young Protestants leaving school with substantially fewer qualifications to the extent that over 80% of those attending the school of law do not come from that community? That is not the case. Fifty per cent of school-leavers are Protestants, and I suspect that their qualifications are fairly similar. It is very clear that young Protestants do not want to go to Queen’s or to the University of Ulster, and there are specific reasons for that.

Those reasons are not being addressed, and the students’ union has strongly resisted addressing those issues. In Queen’s University in particular, the students’ union has demonstrated that it is not a welcoming environment for people from a unionist background. The SDLP wishes to portray itself as a non-sectarian party, but in essence, when we seek to address substantial disparities and discrimination against Protestants and unionists, the SDLP pooh-poohs that and claims that the only substantial degree of disaffection has happened in the nationalist community.

Ms Lewsley: Will you take a point of information?

Mr Poots: Yes.

Ms Lewsley: In my opening remarks, I agreed with Mr McCausland that there are gaps in the unionist community that need to be addressed. We all agreed around this table some weeks ago that equality was based on looking at need objectively. That is all the SDLP is asking for.

When Gregory Campbell talked about unemployment differentials in various sectors, I agreed that there is an issue, but we need to establish a structure that guarantees fair play for everyone. You are being unfair about the SDLP’s approach to the issue of equality and looking at need objectively.

Mr Poots: I accept that that is what you said. However, when we put it into practice, that is not what the SDLP is doing when need has been identified and brought to attention. For example, we made proposals about the Parades Commission —

Mr Nesbitt: Will Mr Poots take a brief point of information?

Mr Poots: I will when I have made this point.

Mr Nesbitt: It is on this point.

Mr Poots: We made specific proposals about the Parades Commission, because it has a huge chill factor in the unionist community. The SDLP said that it found the commission acceptable and that it was fine.

Mr Nesbitt: Does Mr Poots agree that, while you may address things on a basis of looking at need objectively, if you do not understand the dynamics of the problem to start with you have no chance of finding a solution?

Mr Poots: Yes.

Mr Nesbitt: The difference between unionism and nationalism may be in how both perceive the problem.

Mr Poots: I do not see that there should be a difficulty in understanding the problem. Unionists have been capable of accepting that, in many instances, people in the nationalist community have suffered over the years and have greater requirements for fair play in some aspects than in others. However, in the last 10-15 years, things have reversed significantly, and there is more significant deprivation in some unionist communities than in some nationalist ones. It has been more difficult to get educational resources pumped into unionist communities than into nationalist areas. Brain drain from the unionist community is more significant than that from the nationalist community. Those are issues of concern; they must be addressed and, in the long term, it will not be to the benefit of either community — or of the wider community — if that situation continues.

I want to respond to comments made by Naomi Long. Nelson McCausland produced figures that were taken from the Equality Commission’s reports. Mrs Long did not question the figures, but gave the impression that they did not show that there was a problem. Mr McCausland did not mention discrimination or disparity. Why is there disparity against the Protestant community? Are people in the Protestant community not capable of doing those jobs? I suspect that they are capable, so why are they not doing those jobs? They may not have applied for them, and we must ask ourselves why.

Why, for example, are Protestants not applying for jobs in the Equality Commission? Welcoming statements are issued, but the Equality Commission says that it does not get the numbers applying for the positions. It appears that Protestants are not applying for jobs in that industry in a significant way, so the figures produced are not balanced. However, many people have the educational qualifications for those positions.

A disparity exists right across the community sector, and that filters through to funding. The Protestant unionist communities are not getting a fair crack of the whip at the jobs that are available in the community sector. Why are they not in those jobs, and is the unionist community suffering as a result? The unionist community is suffering as a result of not having representatives in those jobs, and what is the Department for Social Development doing about it? Mr McCausland was right to highlight the problem: it should not be set aside and ignored, and we cannot pretend that it does not exist, because it does.

Naomi Long also referred to shared space. I wish that things were as Mrs Long wants to see them and that young people were able to go to the same youth clubs, and so forth. Again, my colleague Nelson McCausland did not refer to unionist youth clubs and nationalist youth clubs; he referred to youth clubs in unionist and nationalist areas, and there is a substantial difference.

I do not know whether Mrs Long could deliver it in her area, but could a youth club be established in the Short Strand/Albertbridge Road area for all the young people in that area to go to together? It would be very nice if it happened. In reality, that is not likely in the near future.

We must deal with realities, as opposed to what we might wish for. Mr McCausland said that in his area £267,000 was spent on one community and nothing was spent on the other community. I wish that that were not the case and that all youth clubs were together, but that is not how it is. Instead, hundreds of thousands of pounds are being spent on one community and zero on the other community. That is not right, and it does not stack up.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): This has had a good airing. We are coming to the main motions, and there are a couple of other issues. Proposals were made on the British passport issue and the lottery fund. It may be that everyone agrees with them, as they were not addressed in any of the comments. However, it may be time for Mr McCausland to beef those proposals up.

Mr Ferguson, I will take your proposal in the second round, as it falls into culture rather than confidence building.

Mr Ferguson: I appreciate that. However, I want to pick up on comments that have been made.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): You will be allowed to join in. I am just letting you know that your proposal is going into the next section.

The proposers must indicate whether their proposals are major impediments to devolution, or whether they are expressing a view on an issue that should be dealt with.

11.45 am

Mr McCausland: I want to clarify, for Mrs Long’s benefit, communities in peaceful co-existence, or benign apartheid as it is sometimes described. Sadly, the fact is that in some areas that would constitute progress. I would not wish you to think that that is my long-term aspiration — it is not. We want to see a community that is interdependent. However, as has been pointed out, the term “community” is used in various ways: perhaps “sub-communities” may be more appropriate. The aspiration of a shared future is the one that I was referring to, and I have no difficulty with that.

I raised the issue about non-lottery funding for people who refuse lottery money on moral grounds. That affects a significant number of institutions within the unionist community. A number of Protestant denominations will not take lottery money on principle. It might also have an impact in parts of Scotland, where there are similar denominations. It impacts particularly on rural areas, where there is a much higher level of church attendance and where church influence is much greater. The impact spreads across all areas of lottery funding. For instance, the Heritage Lottery Fund for buildings is a closed door to many groups. It is a non-contentious issue, and there should be some mechanism whereby such institutions could be accommodated. That is my proposal. The proposal about passports stands as well.

I was very careful to say with regard to the Equality Commission’s figures for the voluntary sector — and I hope that I have not been misrepresented or misunder­stood — that it is not about discrimination; it is about differential. If a differential in employment patterns is seen over a series of years — and I only have the figures for three years, but there is a similar pattern over all the organisations — then that clearly indicates a trend. It is not about one person here or one person there, or about one organisation or another over one or two years. It is about looking over a number of years at a trend that is quite clear across the board.

The implication is that if there is a differential, either the organisations are discriminating — and as I say, I do not that think is the case — or they are seeking to recruit from communities in which there is a differential in capacity. This is, therefore, a way in which you can, in a very rough form, measure the differential in community capacity and community development within the nationalist and unionist communities. A complex issue has been identified, and there is no single solution. It is around such things as how community development training is delivered, where it is delivered, and who delivers it. It is about training and a whole series of other issues.

We are saying that this has to be taken up by the Government at a central level and recognised and addressed as a complex issue. In the meantime, when organisations are undertaking their work, they should be recognising that there is a problem and that they have a role to play in addressing it, particularly when they seek to take on a representative role.

With regard to sticking by every figure that emanates from the Equality Commission — while it may collate information, its own figures for 2004 show that 59·8% of its staff who identified with a community said they were from the Roman Catholic community and 40·2% were from the Protestant community. That is a situation that has deteriorated year on year. The number of non-determined staff in that case is comparatively small.

I am never going to sign up carte blanche to every­thing that emanates from the Equality Commission. I will say emphatically that the principle of equality is absolutely fundamental. That is why there is a problem with the Equality Commission in areas such as youth provision, which it has not looked at, or the voluntary sector, which is in its figures but which it has not picked up on. This is about the commission’s failures and its almost selectivity about what it picks up and does not pick up. This differential has been happening within the commission’s own staff, and it has not been picked up. The commission should have been up front in saying that there is a significant problem, which it needs to address.

We have dealt with the passport and lottery funding issues. There are issues regarding provision for young people, and I am grateful to my colleague for clarifying this point. I did not say “nationalist youth clubs”; I was talking about youth clubs in nationalist areas or youth clubs in unionist areas. If somebody lives in Ballysillan, they are not going to feel comfortable using the two youth clubs in Ardoyne. That is a fact at the moment. We long for the day when we have a shared future and it is not like that any more, but now it is, and the result is that substantial numbers of young people in that area are denied access to youth provision.

The youth sector is like the schools sector: there are two systems. We have a statutory system provided by the boards and a voluntary sector that is almost entirely provided by the Catholic Church. Segregation is already built in, and there is a piece of work that needs to be done by the Department of Education, which is responsible for youth, and the Youth Council, and I am glad to say that the Youth Council is now leading the way with a mapping exercise that is dealing with how resources are allocated. That is something that was never done before.

We were told — and not everyone may be aware of this — that in a number of cases in Belfast all that happens is that there is a 3% increase on last year because the budget has gone up. If you were in last year, you are still in; but if you were not in last year, you get nothing. That is an untenable situation, and we need to address that aspect of youth provision as well as the voluntary sector.

The voluntary sector and the community sector play a significant role in our society. They purport to speak on behalf of large numbers of people and should, therefore, be reflective of the communities they serve.

Mr Ferguson: I want to pick up on some of Naomi’s earlier comments following references I made to Nelson’s submission. I was very specific in that I challenged the selective use of figures and artificial ideological constructs like “weak community infra­structure”. I was very specific in doing that. It is unfortunate that Naomi chose to polarise Nelson’s comments as well as my own. She did that deliberately because she wishes to present the Alliance Party as the voice of reason at all times. Sadly, particularly in this case, that collapses all too often into the rhetoric of community relations without any substance of equality. By doing so in this specific way today — by polarising the debate — the Alliance Party has deliberately and unfortunately sectarianised comments made by the DUP and us.

Mrs Long: Perhaps Mr Ferguson will explain how my comments have been sectarian. I have studiously avoided references to particular communities and have looked at and addressed the issue of need. Can he also explain how I misinterpreted his comments when he referred to Catholics being second-class citizens? What did he say that I misinterpreted?

Mr Ferguson: I would like to continue. Mrs Long and the Alliance Party have consistently and deliberately ignored comments that Sinn Féin and I have made, not only at the meeting today but at previous meetings when we were reinforcing the need constantly to ensure that if we address need, we address it objectively and do not sectarianise poverty. That was deliberately ignored.

There were references to the Irish language and Presbyterianism. As an Irish republican, I am very well aware of the role played by Presbyterians in the struggle for separation from England — and of the consequences for many of those Irish-speakers. Many of them, such as Henry Joy McCracken, were executed. I am well aware of that. Mrs Long and Mr Nesbitt ignore the fact — [Interruption.]

I thought that that would bring you round, Dermot. [Laughter.]

Mr Nesbitt: I have been saying to my colleagues that, since I live in Crossgar, I am well aware of the battles of Saintfield and Ballynahinch, and of the 1798 rebellion and the Presbyterian involvement in it. However, that is local history.

Mr Ferguson: Indeed it is. However, both members have ignored the history of refusal and discrimination concerning funding for Irish schools. I remember protests by Irish-speaking children outside the Department of Education because of such refusals. I remember Sinn Féin’s party leader, Gerry Adams, having to take delegation after delegation to meet the British Government because of refusals to fund the Irish language. Let us not leave that out. Mr Nesbitt’s comments would suggest that discrimination never took place. One wonders why we have an Equality Commission and a Human Rights Commission and why we are having this discussion today.

Mr Nesbitt: I did not say that.

Mr Ferguson: Moving on, Mr McGimpsey made a fair point about focusing on confidence-building measures. He thought that I had spoken only of the Irish language. That is both an equality issue and a human rights issue. I highlighted the need for the greatest demonstration of confidence, namely restoration of the institutions. If we achieve restoration of the institutions we can deal with all of the issues. We can deal with the issue Mr Attwood raised about the border — and I welcome his comments on development of the border areas and cross-border co-operation. Partition cut us off from our natural hinterland and wasted areas such as Newry. He would agree with me that we need to deal with structural disadvantage west of the Bann.

Mr McGimpsey is right. However, the biggest confidence-building measure we could take is to put the institutions back in place. If Mr McCausland is keen to address objective need, as I am, why then do we not have the institutions, and why do we not have accountable Ministers?

Mr McGimpsey made reference to violence. The IRA has given a good lead. Ulster Resistance and the rest of those organisations need to follow suit. That is the way forward. Who does not want policing? We need democratic institutions, functioning institutions, and restoration of the institutions to deliver the policing that the communities need. Restore the institutions. That will be the biggest confidence-building measure.

We do not have to trust each other. I know of no political party in the world that trusts its political opponents. It is not about trust. We have a legal framework within the terms of the Good Friday Agreement that gives us the opportunities not necessarily to trust each other, but to deliver institutions that build confidence — and only functioning institutions can build confidence and deliver it to communities. Telling people that they are the worst off, or the poorest, is not going to do that. Functioning institutions will make the difference.

Mr McFarland: With respect to a shared future and the way ahead, I was much taken, last week, by Mr Brolly’s full support for the integrated school system. He seemed to recommend that anyone who wished to educate children at a faith school should have to pay for it. That was the gist of what he said. I wonder whether Mr Ferguson would agree with that.

Mr Ferguson: The member is aware of Sinn Féin’s support for integrated education. Former Education Minister Martin McGuinness was at pains to support integrated education. I had representatives of Hilden Integrated Primary School with me recently. Mr Poots will know them because they also came to Lisburn City Council. That school is likely to be closed. My party’s stance is that integrated education is the way forward. The DUP is right, in a sense. Mr McCausland pointed out that we live in a society that is divided and diverse. We have a range of educational sectors that would be celebrated anywhere else.

Some people use the British Government’s approach to funding as an excuse to say, “There should not be so many sectors. The Irish-language sector and all the others should be removed. There should be only one sector.” In an ideal world, we would support pluralist education; however, conflict resolution is an issue. Since we have different education sectors, let us support them. Let us give people the opportunity to have the education of their choice and let us do so through institutions that work and function. That is the way forward. That is our corporate position.

12.00 noon

The Chairman (Mr Wells): We shall proceed to the proposals. I want to start with those that seem to be non-contentious. In saying that, no one has addressed them.

Mr McFarland: I want to make a general comment. The Committee has been meeting for three months, although I was absent for a short while. I have noticed that the three or four meetings that I have attended since my return have half evolved from the introduction of proposals that stand a good chance of getting consensus into a competition. My party has, so far, avoided that competition. If it continues, however, we must get involved. Meetings are centred on who makes proposals, and who from the other team will not support them. Afterwards, parties go straight into press releases. What used to be a good Committee system, in which people genuinely made proposals because they stood a good chance of gaining consensus, is moving towards competition. Proposals are not being made to advance the Committee’s work: they are being made in order to score points. I am worried that the Committee has got to that stage.

Chairman, you have pointed out that there are 11 proposals this morning —

The Chairman (Mr Wells): I have just counted them. There are only seven.

Mr McFarland: That is still much more than what we would normally expect on a particular issue. I wonder whether members have lost the plot slightly as to whether they want to make progress or score points. We can all score points. If we want to have a system of point scoring, we might as well get on with that. However, it will not achieve much.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Perhaps you pre-empt the decisions on the proposals. Some may get consensus; some may not. When members make proposals on issues that are of concern to them, it gives a structure to the debate.

Mr McFarland: I am concerned, Chairman, about whether those who have introduced the seven proposals will have an opportunity during the debate to review them, and whether everyone who made a proposal in the middle of a speech somewhere — [Laughter.]

I will rephrase that: whether everyone who dreamed up a proposal in the middle of a speech, which was subsequently recorded as such, merely wanted to say something off the cuff rather than genuinely want to make a proposal.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): We shall review the proposals. I want to start with those that seem to be less contentious and move up the ladder, as it were.

A proposal has been made with regard to National Lottery funding: to set up an alternative fund for religious groups that object to the use of money that has been raised from betting. Such groups could apply to the fund for money for church restoration, and so forth.

Nelson made a proposal about the difference between those who were born in the Irish Republic who wish to apply for a British passport vis-à-vis those who were born in Northern Ireland who wish to apply for an Irish passport. No one has commented on that being a burning issue.

Nelson also proposed the introduction of a “border fund” for isolated Protestant communities, to which Alex introduced an amendment. The proposal and amendment will be moved simultaneously.

There is a proposal on the perceived chill factor in universities. A proposal on youth provision has been suggested, although I am not certain whether Nelson wants to make a proposal or simply wants to indicate that he is unhappy with the current situation.

Ms Lewsley made a somewhat unusual proposal. If it were to gain consensus, we could finish business today. I expect that there will be debate on it.

Ms Lewsley: I want to comment on what Alan McFarland said. My proposal may seem contentious; however, it is, at least, encompassing.

My worry is that some of Nelson’s proposals, whether good or otherwise, deal with individual issues. Every member around this table could produce a wish list and name some of those issues. I have some serious concerns about that, as, I think, does Alan.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Sinn Féin will also have proposals when we move on to cultural issues.

Parties have made proposals in the past, and other parties have refrained from doing so. All the issues that have been raised are relevant to the subjects under discussion — there is no question about that. As Chair­man, I cannot tell a member that they should not make a proposal simply because I believe that they are trying to score points. Heaven forbid that a member of this Committee would try to score points off anybody else.

Ms Lewsley: I am not saying that this is a matter of point scoring. Nelson’s issues are specific to different sectors. We talked about unemployment figures at previous meetings, and we could all talk again about the gaps on both sides. I could make a proposal that money should be given to x, y and z, or that a special fund should be set up. I am simply worried about the route that the Committee is taking.

Mr McCausland: We would be deceiving ourselves and doing a disservice to the unionist community if we did not make absolutely clear the deep sense of alienation and inequality that exists. That issue must be put on the table. Politicians have not concocted this problem: there is a deep-seated sense of disadvantage in that community. Until that major obstacle is addressed, we cannot move forward.

I raised some issues this morning to bring a sense of reality and substance to the discussion; I could have raised 25 issues. We can talk in general about how wonderful equality is and how we must sign up to it, but at some stage we must tackle the issues. The equality issues that I raised have been ignored. Dermot Nesbitt and other members were right to point out that they have been talked about for years. However, they are just the tip of the iceberg; the bulk of the problems are underwater. Thus, it is important that we highlight them today.

We must also take cognisance of the fact that a series of communities have suffered from ethnic cleansing in border areas, which is a particularly sensitive issue.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am not going to reopen the debate. I will take comments only about Alan’s procedural point.

Mrs Long: There is a difficulty with a number of the proposals. Nelson used the word “perception”. I agree that perception of discrimination is different from the actual existence of discrimination; evidence certainly shows that a disparity exists.

The problem is that we are proposing ways to tackle this issue without having properly examined the evidence. These proposals attempt to find a cure for problems without first identifying the causes. Members may have opinions on what the causes are, but those opinions may not necessarily be based on evidence.

I am slightly concerned about some of the detailed proposals, not because I object to their detail or general thrust, but because they are not evidence based. That is a concern, and I do not know how that can be dealt with procedurally.

If this were a matter of studying the issues and producing evidence, consensus could be reached. However, it is a different matter to put forward a proposal to tackle a problem when the underlying causes have not been identified. I am not sure that consensus would be reached in that case.

I do not wish to denigrate any of the important issues that have been raised; my concern is about how the proposals are being tackled.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): A member is perfectly entitled to make a proposal. Other members have expressed concerns about the procedural approach, but it is entirely in order, and I have to put those proposals to the Committee.

Mr McCausland: Let me make a suggestion. This morning we identified areas of concern to the unionist community. Perhaps there could be a general proposal about unionist alienation, citing areas of particular concern such as disadvantage, youth issues, the community sector and the significant work needed to address them. The issues are now on record, and that is important, but a general proposal might draw them together.

Mr McFarland: We agreed that we should bring issues to the table and alert our parties and our communities to those that might prove difficult in firing up the Assembly again. The difficulties that Nelson has set out today are genuine. There is a perception, rightly or wrongly, that some effort needs to be made to recognise and address the issues. Perhaps Nelson could produce a composite proposal setting that out. Other parties should not have a problem with recognising that unionism has a difficulty with some issues. It is not unreasonable to call for those issues to be examined and for detailed evidence to be identified so that we can find a solution.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Would it be possible, Nelson, to produce such a proposal over lunch and bring it back to the Committee at 12.45 pm?

Mr McCausland: OK.

Ms Lewsley: At one of our earlier sessions on equality issues, there was some toing and froing over a proposal. The parties worked together over lunch and came up with a form of words on which they could all reach consensus. Would it be possible to do that in this case?

Mr McFarland: Perhaps some of the team, having heard our discussions, might rustle something up that all the parties could come in behind.

Mr Nesbitt: We did that two weeks ago.

Ms Lewsley: It took five or 10 minutes.

Mr Nesbitt: The officials did it. It would be good to revisit the proposal that we agreed two weeks ago and to which all parties subscribed. It was a composite proposal that was drawn up by officials over lunch —

Ms Lewsley: I am sorry, but it was drawn up by the political parties and given to officials.

Mr Nesbitt: What I asked was that the officials work on it and present something on which the parties can agree. I do not know who wrote it up.

Ms Lewsley: The political parties wrote it up and gave it to the officials.

Mr McCausland: I will undertake to produce something over lunch.

Mr Nesbitt: It is the parties who must draw up a proposal.

Mr McCausland: I said that I would draw something up and pass it round for consideration.

Mr Nesbitt: It might help if a composite proposal were to come from the Committee.

Mr McCausland: That is the aspiration.

Mr McGuigan: We recognise that it is important that the Preparation for Government Committee deal with poverty and social and economic disadvantage so that the Assembly can tackle those issues when it is set up. Any proposal should be general and should call on the Assembly and the Executive to tackle poverty and social and economic disadvantage —wherever they may exist.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): I think that the DUP proposal will be a bit more specific than that.

Mr Ferguson: That is my concern. There is a perception of alienation, deprivation and poverty, real or imagined, in the unionist community. That perception has been fostered by the absence of functioning institutions. The DUP failed to support the institutions when they were up and running, and I fear that this is more prevarication to avoid doing what needs to be done. What needs to be done was set out in the Programme for Government under the previous Administration, and it was, as Philip pointed out, about addressing disadvantage and need.

We should agree on a general proposal that does not politically tag or sectarianise poverty, alienation and need — they are common afflictions. The way forward, if the DUP will agree, is to formulate a general proposal centred on the Programme for Government under the last Assembly.

12.15 pm

Mr Attwood: I want to give Nelson some guidance on the SDLP’s perspective. For any proposal to be agreed by us, it must be broadly based. I could have come to the Committee this morning and talked about the figures relating to the allocation of Invest Northern Ireland money across the North. I could have put forward a proposal referring to the remarkable disparity between the money allocated to north and west Belfast and that allocated to south and east Belfast — and I include all parts of north Belfast, not only the nationalist areas. Exactly the same applies to the difference in allocation of Invest NI resources east and west of the Bann. That creates a lack of opportunity for the communities in those underfunded areas and a sense of alienation, because people feel hard done by, currently and historically.

Therefore, any proposal touching on Nelson’s community’s sense of being disadvantaged or discriminated against — as well as cases of real disadvantage — must be balanced to recognise the nationalist community’s sense of being disadvantaged in relation to many other public policy issues. The SDLP suggests, therefore, that the proposal should address the causes or perceptions of nationalist or unionist alienation — or common alienation — in relation to the allocation of resources and the development of policies. The implementation of the proposal can be informed by some of Nelson’s comments as well as comments made by other parties on particular matters.

Mr McCausland: I did not mention poverty, because that is a subject for another day. This is about disparity and differential and, in some cases, discrimination — although, having said that, I will be referring to matters this afternoon in which discrimination is to the fore.

I have a stronger sense of what the unionist community is thinking than Michael Ferguson does. The issues and their causes are very much in the minds of —

Mr Ferguson: Nelson, if you tell people that they are hard done by, they will think that they are.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Dermot’s contribution will end the discussion, because I have given every party an opportunity to speak.

Mr Nesbitt: Nelson said that he did not mention “poverty”. However, whether the words used are “disparity”, “disadvantage”, “discrimination” or whatever, it is also about poverty, of which unemployment is one of the stronger measures. Just because the word poverty was not mentioned does not mean that it does not exist.

Chairman, I have a suggestion on procedure. Any proposal should be from the entire Committee, as distinct from a proposal submitted by one party and endorsed by this Committee: there is a big difference.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Naomi, have you any views on that?

Mrs Long: No. The Alliance Party can discuss its views with Nelson over lunch as he formulates the wording of a proposal. For the Alliance Party to be comfortable with supporting the proposal, it must be sufficiently broadly based to deal with the points relating to discrimination and people’s perceptions of discrimination that have been raised by all parties round the table.

The proposal must also take into account the changing nature of our community and those who have come from other cultures and other countries and may feel alienated from politics, society in general and the workforce. For the wording to be right, that must be reflected, and the Alliance Party wishes it to be included in the proposal.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): As it is now 12.19 pm and lunch is at 12.20 pm, we will adjourn to enable the proposal to be drafted. We will consider the proposal at 12.45 pm and then move straight on to discussing cultural issues.

The Committee was suspended at 12.19 pm.

On resuming —

12.49 pm

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Dr Birnie is replacing Mr Nesbitt. Dr Birnie, I understand that this is not your first time with us.

Dr Birnie: It is.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): On the PFG Committee?

Dr Birnie: Yes.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): In that case, we must ask whether you have any interests to declare.

Mr A Maginness: Except your genius.

Dr Birnie: No.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): I welcome Alban Maginness to the meeting. He dropped in just before we adjourned. We have a good turnout. I alert members that I have a slight problem in that I hope to leave around 3.30 pm.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Constituency work is always a bit of a pain, but it must be done.

We adjourned in order to allow Nelson McCausland to come up with a composite proposal aimed at reaching consensus on the matter at hand. Are we in a position to do that?

Mr McCausland: There will not be agreement among the parties, so I will submit our proposal. Perhaps there will be some degree of support for that.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): The proposal is that the PFG Committee recognise that community disadvantage and alienation are obstacles to political progress, and that that is particularly evident within the unionist community. Is there consensus on that?

Members indicated dissent.

Mrs Long: May we propose an amendment?

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes.

Mrs Long: Alienation, deprivation, disadvantage and lack of confidence exist, and are barriers to progress. The final sentence uses the words “particularly evident within the unionist community.” Instead, we could say that where those conditions exist, or are perceived to exist, action should be taken to tackle them objectively based on need.

Lord Morrow: It is not a perception, Mr Chairman.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is that an acceptable amendment?

Members indicated dissent.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): That amendment is not accepted.

Mr McGimpsey: Mr McCausland said that no one mentioned poverty. I mentioned poverty earlier. As a unionist addressing the obstacles to the reinstatement of the institutions, it seems to me that this is a key issue. My suggested wording is:

“Disadvantage within communities seriously undermines confidence in the political process within those communities.” I suggest adding: “Currently, this is particularly apparent within the unionist community.”

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Before I call Mr McGuigan, I wish to check if we have a basis for debate. I see that the SDLP is still unhappy with the wording.

Mr McFarland: Mr Chairman, we must look back. This topic is on the agenda because unionists identified a lack of confidence within unionist communities. That was lodged as a matter of concern back in May and June. We are discussing this matter because of that lack of confidence within unionist communities. The issue has evolved, and we shall discuss other matters later, but that is the genesis of our discussing this. The proposal that Mr McGimpsey outlined is eminently sensible, given that this is the topic that we are supposed to be addressing.

Ms Lewsley: For clarity, we asked at the end of last week’s meeting whether we could gain some under­standing of what our discussions this week were to be about, so that we could all prepare. I was under no impression that this issue was simply about the unionist community; I thought that it was about a lack of confidence within all communities.

Mr McFarland: This topic got on the agenda because the DUP and UUP identified it as a problem that has been recognised by the Government. This matter has featured in discussions since March. There was perceived to be a lack of confidence within the unionist community. Mr McGimpsey has covered the reasons for that, particularly relating to the outworking of the agreement and a number of other issues. There is an apparent imbalance between the money and attention paid to unionists and that paid to nationalists. That is why this matter was originally put on the agenda. These proposals are in keeping with attempts to deal with the original problem.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Only two parties highlighted that; it was not mentioned by anybody from a nationalist party or from the Alliance Party.

Lord Morrow: Is the inference that other communities do not have a problem with a lack of confidence, since they do not —

Mrs Long: We do.

Lord Morrow: Hold on. I hear what you are saying now, but I have never heard it before. Unionists were concerned about this, not nationalists.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Naomi, Mr McGuigan, and Alex will speak next, after which the proposal, as amended, will be put. We will not get into this issue too deeply. I suspect that we will not reach consensus, but we must get the issue out of the way.

Mr Poots: Can we go back to the original proposals? We were asked to suggest a composite proposal, and there were original proposals. Given the problem of gambling, and the desperate situations in which people find themselves as a result, why is there no support for a non-lottery fund for those who have serious gambling problems?

The Chairman (Mr Wells): If the composite proposal is agreed, the other proposals fall. If the composite proposal fails, I will ask the proposers of the original proposals whether they still wish their proposals to go to a vote. The original proposals have not gone away.

Mrs Long: The clarification that our party sought last week specifically concerned the headings and how they related to preparation for Government. That was the context in which we addressed the matter. We did not say last week that it was simply about unionist areas. I certainly contend that many members of society feel alienated from politics and from the society in which they live and have a lack of confidence in the political process. That goes much wider than the unionist community.

I want us to recognise that alienation, deprivation, disadvantage and lack of confidence exist in our community. It is important to do so. When I referred to both real and perceived situations, it was in no way to diminish the reality. Rather, it was to state that perception of disadvantage, deprivation and alienation can be just as strong a barrier to progress as the reality. I used the word “perception” in addition to “reality” to illustrate that, even where it is only a perception, the situation still needs to be addressed.

I would have liked us to recognise that such situations exist, and to agree that we could address those needs, perceptions and realities through evidence-based approaches to deal with need. I cannot see how that disadvantages any individual. However, I can see how focusing on a particular community will disadvantage other individuals. My proposal was not designed to diminish the reality and perception within the unionist community, but to ensure that anyone who feels alienated, deprived, disadvantaged or has a lack of confidence in our society is assured that those issues will be dealt with on the basis of evidence and need.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr McGuigan.

Mr McGuigan: First, Mr Chairman, I allow you to call me Philip, if you so wish.

Secondly, we were not involved in the consultation during lunch. I am confused as to which proposal I am speaking to, so I will address Mr McCausland’s proposal. Sinn Féin does not believe that lack of confidence, if it exists, is an obstacle to progress. Conversely, the lack of progress has resulted in a lack of confidence. It is for that reason, and because it suggests specific measures for one community over another, that we will not be supporting Mr McCausland’s proposal.

Mr Attwood: To respond to Alan’s point, the agenda item is headed “Confidence building”, and the unionist parties will bring flavour to that. However, building confidence is a global agenda item and is not dedicated or relevant to the unionist community alone. As I said towards the end of the morning session, we could all have done what the DUP did today, but we chose not to in order to try to progress the work of this Committee and to reach some conclusions.

There is a view around the table that some DUP proposals are so specific that they go beyond what is balanced and reasonable for the development of today’s discussion.

Although there are areas of real unionist need and perceived unionist need, it is not fair for Alan to say that we have to be prescriptive and sign up to the particular proposal suggested. At least four of the parties should work towards some sort of agreed proposal because there might be an agreed proposal that is different from—

1.00 pm

Lord Morrow: We have heard that a lot over the past few years.

Mr Attwood: It is to highlight the fact that there has been a sense of sectional interest rather than a broader interest around the table this morning. It is a pity that at least four of the parties cannot unite around a proposal with a broader interest that identifies unionist unmet need rather than on a proposal that appears to the SDLP and others to be sectional and deals only with perceived areas of unionist unmet need.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will move on to the proposals and amendments. Mr McGimpsey’s proposal is the first to be considered. Do you wish to make your proposal formally?

Mr McGimpsey: I do.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): The proposal is that disadvantage within communities seriously undermines confidence in the political process within those communities and that this is particularly apparent in the unionist community. Do we have consensus?

Members indicated dissent.

Mr A Maginness: Will Mr McGimpsey leave out the last part of his proposal?

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is that a suggestion to drop the reference to the unionist community?

Mr A Maginness: Yes.

Mr McFarland: I am sorry that people cannot refresh their memories by reading Hansard. We had a month and a half of discussions at which parties raised issues that troubled them and which they believed needed to be sorted out. Those issues were divided up into Monday, Wednesday and Friday meetings. I am sorry that the issue of confidence building was morphed into this wording. The original issue was raised by the UUP and the DUP — it was not raised by nationalism, and you can read Hansard and check that out. It related directly to a perceived lack of confidence within the unionist community.

We have now moved into a social discussion about disadvantaged communities, which is important, but it is not why the topic was on the agenda originally.

Mrs Long: I accept the reasons that the topic was put on the agenda. Nothing that I have said, or the removal of the last part of Michael’s proposal, would diminish the reality. It would simply ensure that all need and disadvantage was dealt with on the basis of evidence of need and not sectional interest. That is the crux of the matter. It is not to deny that those issues exist within unionism; it is simply to say that they should be addressed on the basis of objective need. At the moment, it may be a problem for unionism, but at other times, it might be a problem for someone else, and agreeing the proposal could create feelings of alienation in others. Why should we be sectional in our approach? Why not look for a whole-community solution to a problem, which is not simply one for unionism? The lack of confidence within unionism being a barrier to political progress is also my problem, whether or not I am a unionist.

Mr McFarland: We were trying to identify issues that are major problems to setting up Government, and unionist confidence, in terms of the DUP and the UUP’s going into Government with Sinn Féin, is a major problem. It was identified as such in all the initial discussions. Naomi is right: we have moved on to a different issue. However, we were discussing unionist confidence, and it seems slightly daft to have a proposal that does not refer to a topic that was on the agenda only because it related directly to unionism.

Mr Ferguson: Mr McFarland made the point that although Sinn Féin did not make this proposal, it could have made a similar proposal. Sinn Féin chose not to make such a proposal for the very reasons given by Alban and Naomi. Sinn Féin does not want to sectionalise or sectarianise the issue, which is why it focused on objective need. Naomi is right: if members push through the proposal, with the wording that they prefer, they will increase the danger of further sectarianising the issue.

The bullying of the British Government into the Protestant task force and the subsequent allocation of £300 million caused great furore, and many nationalists perceived those actions as sectarianising certain poverty while ignoring their poverty. Sinn Féin rejected making a proposal such as this because it would only sectionalise and sectarianise poverty. Objective need, and addressing need wherever it exists, would be the best way forward, and that is how the Programme for Government operated under the previous Assembly.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is clear that we will not reach consensus on this. Mr Maginness suggested dropping the reference to the unionist community in Mr McGimpsey’s proposal. Mr McGimpsey appears to be unhappy with that and, therefore, will not accept it. Mr Maginness can still make that proposal, but I suspect that it will not achieve consensus. Mr Maginness, do you want to make your proposal formally?

Mr A Maginness: Yes. I make formally my amendment to Mr McGimpsey’s proposal, which is to drop the reference to the unionist community.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is there consensus?

Members indicated dissent.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): In the absence of any other attempt at a composite proposal, we move to the individual proposals. I will start with what I perceive to be the least contentious, and I will work towards what I perceive to be an interesting proposal from Ms Lewsley.

Lord Morrow: The nuclear option.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes.

Mr McCausland’s proposal is aimed at those groups whose principles do not enable them to claim National Lottery money. Is there consensus?

Mr Ferguson: No. I am not happy to agree this proposal without having seen the evidence base for it and its potential implications. For that very reason, I would not want to agree to something that could impact adversely on anyone. Even in council, we seek equality impact assessments for most of these types of proposal. Therefore, I would be —

Mr McGimpsey: On a point of information, Mr Chairman. This issue arose during the Golden Jubilee celebrations. I was the Minister responsible for the Golden Jubilee grant awards and I created a non-Lottery grant scheme. The scheme allocated substantial funds and it was supported not only by the UUP and the SDLP but by Sinn Féin. All parties in the Assembly agreed to the concept. Therefore, the precedent is there.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes, but that grant scheme was for the Golden Jubilee specifically; it did not extend further.

Mr McGimpsey: The argument is about the principle: could there be non-Lottery funding? That principle has been conceded in the Assembly.

Mr Poots: I will explain this for those who live in caves and do not realise what is going on in the country. Many churches, for example, have not been able to benefit from the Heritage Lottery Fund. The fund distributes millions of pounds that help to retain much of Northern Ireland’s architectural heritage, but many churches are not prepared to accept that money because they have specific issues with gambling, the problems that arise from it, and the lives that have been destroyed as a result of it. It is as simple as that. Some groups have serious issues with gambling and see the National Lottery as the first step to the problems that gambling causes.

Lord Morrow: There is something fundamentally wrong with a society that cannot protect the consciences of people, which is all that this proposal is trying to do.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): The only reason that I am allowing this issue to be debated is because it had not been addressed during the main discussion. Let us focus and not get bogged down on this particular issue.

Does that reassure the Sinn Féin representatives?

Mr Ferguson: I want to comment anyway. Mr Poots is well aware of my position on gambling. In Lisburn City Council I have put forward motions — for which I sought his support but could not get it — opposing the introduction of gambling facilities in my constituency. He is only too aware of how vociferous I have been on this issue. I welcome the clarification; it does reassure us.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): So it looks as though we will reach consensus?

Mr A Maginness: We see no problem with this. The only rider that I would add is that if we are trying to identify obstacles and impediments to restoration, I cannot see this issue being an obstacle or an impediment. Certainly, in the course of any restoration, such a scheme should be addressed and reintroduced.

Mr McCausland: Would it not be agreeable that, by creating an enabling environment, we might be able to look forward to such things?

Mr A Maginness: We are not objecting to it. We are simply pointing out that it does not appear to be a significant issue.

Dr Birnie: In response to Michael’s query, a consultancy report was prepared for the Department for Social Development, which produced evidence of the problem to which Edwin referred.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do we have consensus on the proposal?

Members indicated assent.

Mr Ferguson: Would you like to strike the comment about the caves? I have to say that it was rather offensive.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): We now come to the issue of passports. Some individuals say that no evidence was produced. Mr McCausland, perhaps you would explain the modalities of what you are trying to do so that people understand the problem.

Mr McCausland: If people are wondering whether there is concern about this matter, they need only look at the letters page of ‘The Irish Times’ to see that it has been raised by a number of correspondents. There is no doubt that it is a genuine issue.

We propose that British passports should be available for those born in the Republic of Ireland since 1941. Currently, they are available only if people apply for British citizenship, whereas Irish passports are available automatically and at no extra cost for those in Northern Ireland who view themselves as Irish. It is an equality issue.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is that since or before 1941, Nelson?

Mr McCausland: Since 1941.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is that sufficient explanation for members?

Mr McFarland: Is it 1949 or 1941?

Mr McCausland: Since 1941.

Mr McFarland: The Republic of Ireland Act came into force in 1949. Is there something else that brings this back to 1941?

Mr McCausland: It is my typing, or someone else’s typing.

Ms Lewsley: It is all coming out now.

Mr McCausland: I did not have my glasses yesterday; I could not see anything.

Mr McFarland: The Republic of Ireland seceded from the Commonwealth in 1949.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are members happy with the explanation?

Mr Attwood: It is not for me to argue the DUP point, but it does smell of interference in the affairs of another country. Given that, I think that the height of what could be agreed is that the Committee could request that the Irish Government consider the matter.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are you happy enough to amend the proposal?

Mr McCausland: No, it concerns British passports.

Lord Morrow: It is a matter for the UK Government, Chairman. It has nothing to do with the Dublin Government.

Mr Attwood: This is an inter-jurisdictional matter. I do not think that the British Government would act unilaterally. That is not the nature of the relationship or of the issue.

Lord Morrow: That is a way of saying no.

Mr Attwood: The matter should be referred to the British and Irish Governments, given that it is clearly —

Mr McCausland: It would be referred to the British Government, and they would presumably want to speak to others about the issue.

Mr Attwood: You are talking about people who live in the South, so some acknowledgement must be given to the Irish Government’s role in this. The British Government may well say that they cannot accept —

The Chairman (Mr Wells): I cannot see this being a major obstacle on 24 November.

Mr McFarland: We could support it in principle without identifying who should deal with it.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Does that have consensus?

Mr McGuigan: The specific requirements and needs of the people in the North — or the Six Counties — were made clear in the Good Friday Agreement, and they are different from those who live in the South. What came out of the Good Friday Agreement was necessary in relation to British and Irish citizenship for people in the South. On that basis Sinn Féin does not support the proposal.

1.15 pm

Mr Attwood: That is why this matter should be referred to the two Governments for their consideration. If there were a demand or a perceived need, the Irish Government might look at the matter positively, especially in view of the new relationships and the new political environment that have existed since 1984 or 1985. I am surprised by Sinn Féin’s approach, because the nature of relationships was reworked with the Good Friday Agreement, as was the issue of identity, to some degree. Therefore that matter must be considered — not that one would want to be prescriptive about the outcome. There are people on this island who think that it is a matter that requires consideration. Should we not address their needs as well? I am surprised at the attitude of Sinn Féin. Can we agree that this matter should be referred to the appropriate Governments for their consideration?

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Would that gain consensus? Are members content that the matter be considered by the two Governments?

Mr McGuigan: I made my comments based on the proposal before me. Sinn Féin is content for the two Governments to have consultations, but it is not a major impediment to the restoration of the Executive and is not an issue in which the Executive or the Assembly should become engaged.

Mr McCausland: I will not be pedantic about the terminology. It is the principle that is important.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do we have consensus that the two Governments consider this issue?

Members indicated assent.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): The next DUP proposal concerns a fund for the border community: that the Preparation for Government Committee recognises the unique problems faced by some local communities along the border, which have suffered from a campaign of ethnic cleansing, and supports the development of a border fund to support those communities.

Mr Attwood: What is the proposal?

The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Preparation for Government Committee recognises the unique problems faced by some local communities along the border, which have suffered from a campaign of ethnic cleansing, and supports the development of a border fund to support those communities.

Mr McGuigan: The DUP is making deliberately provocative proposals that its members know have no chance of success. A number of important issues have been discussed today, and with some work and agreement we could proceed on them. However, this DUP proposal is deliberately provocative and has no chance of achieving consent.

Lord Morrow: He is not listening to what is being said; he is looking at who is saying it.

Mr McGuigan: That is not correct. I am looking at the use of such terms as “ethnic cleansing”, which are clearly —

Mr Poots: In County Fermanagh, in particular, many people were driven from their properties. The men of the households were shot dead, and, consequently, many people had to abandon properties and family farms that had been in their names for generations. Many of those people would like to return.

Mr McGuigan: Should the people of Ahoghill — an area that was ethnically cleansed last year — get special funding?

Mr Poots: I would expect the same courtesy to apply to everyone. Is there not an onus on us to allow those people who were driven from their homes at the hands of gunmen and terrorists to return to their property, and to help to facilitate their doing so?

Mr McGuigan: An unfortunate aspect of being an elected representative in North Antrim is that every week I encounter people who have been forced out of their homes. In the past week, there have been petrol-bomb attacks in Ballymena, and, last year, we suffered a horrific campaign of ethnic cleansing. We are happy to address those issues on the sensible foundation of addressing need where it exists without provocative language from the DUP.

Mr Poots: What is provocative about it?

Mr McFarland: We will not reach agreement on this proposal.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is there consensus on Mr McCausland’s proposal? I have not heard any comments.

Mr Attwood: It may be better to say that the Committee requests consideration of targeting resources at border communities to maintain border life.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is your amendment, which we will come to next, but do we have consensus on Mr McCausland’s proposal?

Members indicated dissent.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will move to Mr Attwood’s amendment to Mr McCausland’s proposal: that consideration be given for resources to be targeted to sustain border communities and enhance cross-border initiatives —

Mr Attwood: Enhanced initiatives where there are cross-border projects.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do we have consensus?

Members indicated dissent.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will not get progress on that issue.

The next proposal concerns universities. Several members said that they would oppose it. Have those members changed their minds?

Lord Morrow: What is the proposal?

The Chairman (Mr Wells): The proposal is that there should be work in universities to eliminate the chill factor for those from a unionist background. Do we have consensus?

Members indicated dissent.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): There is one issue remaining. Nelson, was your suggestion on youth provision a proposal?

Mr McCausland: No, it was tied in with the issue about the voluntary and community sector. It was highlighting the fact that there is a fundamental issue with alienation, and we have got nowhere with that.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): That gets rid of all the proposals, except the elephant in the room — I am sorry, that is a scurrilous remark.

Ms Lewsley: I could leave this Committee damaged from all the references that have been made about me.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): That proposal does not sit neatly with the discussions that we have had up until now.

Lord Morrow: Is it in order?

The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is in order: the Committee calls for the full restoration of the Assembly and its institutions, for Sinn Féin to support the rule of law and policing structures, and for the DUP to sign up to the institutions.

Mr McFarland: When the full Committee is reorganised, after the Monday, Wednesday and Friday teams have met, that proposal may come forward.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): That will not happen, Alan. Each strand will agree its own report.

Mr McFarland: Members have been standing in for colleagues, but the original members of the Committee will be required to sign off the report that is produced from the Monday, Wednesday and Friday teams.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): The deputies have the authority to sign it off.

Mrs Long: This is the main Preparation for Government Committee. It meets to discuss issues of equality, rights, safeguards and victims. It is not a subcommittee. There was only one subgroup, and that was the Subgroup on the Economic Challenges Facing Northern Ireland. Therefore this does not come back anywhere for ratification.

Mr McFarland: My point is that there is a subgroup report and there will be one report from the Preparation for Government Committee.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): There will be three separate reports from the Committee; I have seen the drafts.

Mr McFarland: Is that what was agreed?

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. That is the only way in which it could be done. I will ask Patricia to come in because I am intrigued by the proposal. I am reminded of a famous Act of Parliament on shipping under King Henry VIII, the last line of which was: “I hereby divorce my fourth wife.” The proposal seems to have been dropped in completely out of context, and I want to know what the rationale is.

Ms Lewsley: We are talking about confidence building on both sides of the community, and much of the lack of confidence comes from some of the parties around this table. That is why the proposal deals with restoration. That is what people want to see: the restoration of the Assembly and its institutions. However, there are problems: Sinn Féin has not signed up to policing and the rule of law; and the DUP is not prepared to work the institutions and the agreement.

Mr Ferguson: I am happy to amend that, if the SDLP is prepared to withdraw its remarks on policing. It knows our position well. We would probably have achieved what we wanted on policing if the SDLP had not pulled out so quickly. If the SDLP is happy to withdraw the reference to policing, I am sure that the DUP will want to withdraw references to itself as well. The restoration of the institutions is an objective on which we could try to secure consensus.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Why was it introduced at this point in the discussions?

Ms Lewsley: Because it is a confidence-building measure.

Lord Morrow: It is not a confidence-building measure. The role of the Preparation for Government Committee is purely to scope the issues; it is not to bring about the restoration of devolution. It is purely to identify the issues that are holding back the restoration of the Assembly. This proposal is to bring back the Assembly, and that is contrary to everything that we are discussing here.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): I will go round the parties.

Mrs Long: I do not believe that the proposal is out of context. It goes further than my opening statements that to restore confidence in the community as a whole we need an end to threats, intimidation and all paramilitary activity. I said that we needed a firm commitment from all parties around this table that they are building for government. We have not had that commitment; we have certainly not had a commitment on paramilitary activity. The proposal is not out of order, as it addresses the fact that much of the lack of confidence in our community does not just relate to either unionism or nationalism but to the vast swathe of people who have no confidence in the ability of their politicians to move the process forward. The way to address that is to show, in a concrete way, that we are committed to making progress.

Lord Morrow: With all due respect, Naomi, that is a different issue. If people do not have confidence in us, they can remove us at the next election.

Mrs Long: As it applies to Northern Ireland, progress includes building confidence in the political process and its ability to deliver for the community.

Mr McFarland: It is like motherhood and apple pie. However, there are a great many ifs: if the conditions are right, if we have identified all the issues, if the negotiations in October succeed and if Sinn Féin supports policing. We have spent weeks discussing what might or might not happen in future. It is a wonderful aspiration with which one could not argue.

Ms Lewsley: It is a basic principle to which people could sign up.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): It would get good press coverage if it got through.

Lord Morrow: Now you are touching on the issue.

Mr A Maginness: It is not apple pie and it is not aspirational. It is very precise in what it proposes: that Sinn Féin signs up to policing is the first part of the proposal. All of us here, save for Sinn Féin, of course, see that as a serious obstacle to restoration. It is an impediment to restoration.

Hypothetically, if Sinn Féin were to say that it would sign up to policing and that it would do so today or tomorrow, a major obstacle to restoration would be removed in one stroke. How other parties would respond to that is a matter for them. However, if Sinn Féin were to sign up to policing, as people have been demanding, it would transform the political situation.

Equally, the DUP’s refusal to give a commitment to work the institutions remains an obstacle to restoration. Most people — particularly the nationalist electorate — see the DUP as unwilling to work the institutions. However, if the DUP were to say that it was prepared to work the institutions, that obstacle to restoration would be removed. If the DUP committed itself today, and said that it would work the institutions under the agreement, the Committee would make political progress. Therefore, it is not an aspirational proposal; it is precise and would transform the political situation if it were passed.

1.30 pm

The Chairman (Mr Wells): I will take contri­butions from Mr McGuigan and Mr Poots, and then the Committee will vote on the proposal.

Mr McGuigan: With regard to the second part of the proposal, I understood that the PFG Committee is considering policing and justice in a separate format, and I presume that that version of the Committee will produce a report. Policing and justice should be left with that version of the Committee. As Michael Ferguson said, I am more than happy to outline Sinn Féin’s position on policing: it is a very good position.

Mr A Maginness: The Committee is discussing confidence-building measures. The SDLP has identified two confidence-building measures: Sinn Féin’s signing up to policing, and the DUP’s committing to work the institutions under the agreement. They are short-term, but they are confidence-building measures. Nobody in this room could deny that if the two parties made those commitments, it would be a confidence-building and -boosting measure that could transform the whole political situation.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Poots.

Mr Poots: Yes, thank you —

Mr McGuigan: I was not finished.

Mr A Maginness: It was an intervention.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am sorry. I thought that Mr McGuigan had finished.

Mr McGuigan: Another format of this Committee is dealing with policing and justice. However, Sinn Féin has a position on policing and would like to work through those issues to a successful resolution. That is the aim and objective of Sinn Féin. I agree with the first part of the proposal, regarding the political institutions. There was no reason or impediment for the institutions to be brought down in the first place, and the real lack of confidence exists because the institutions are not up and running.

I listened to this morning’s discussions about unionist areas. First and foremost, if the politicians from the unionist communities want to act on behalf of their communities and want to address their very real needs, which, as in other communities, are caused by social deprivation, they should get the institutions up and running. After that, we can work to address the lack of confidence that exists across the communities.

Mr Poots: This amendment may deal with the issues that Alban raised: that the PFG Committee calls for all-party support for policing and justice, and for all parties to work fully with relevant authorities to end criminality and establish accountable, democratic structures inclusive of those committed to exclusively democratic and peaceful means.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Let us go through the formalities. Do we have consensus on Ms Lewsley’s original motion?

Members indicated dissent.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is there an amendment to Mr Poots’s proposal in your name, Mr Ferguson? I was not sure whether it was meant to be moved.

Mr Ferguson: It is no more likely to go through than Ms Lewsley’s proposal.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Ferguson’s amendment was to delete references to Sinn Féin, the rule of law and policing structures. That would leave the proposal as follows: that this Committee calls for the restoration of the Assembly and institutions and calls for the DUP to sign up to the institutions.

Lord Morrow: Did he put the DUP bit in?

Mr Ferguson: We can take that bit out.

Mr McFarland: There is not going to be much left. [Laughter.]

The Chairman (Mr Wells): What is left is: that this Committee calls for the full restoration of the Assembly and its institutions. Is there consensus?

Members indicated dissent.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): We are then left with an amendment by Mr Poots, which, I perceive, may not achieve consensus.

Ms Lewsley: Will the member read it out again, please?

Mr Poots: That this Committee calls for all-party support for policing and justice, and for all parties to work fully with relevant authorities to end criminality and establish accountable democratic structures inclusive of those committed to exclusively democratic and peaceful means.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Does everyone understand that? Is there consensus?

Members indicated dissent.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): I heard a definite “No” from my left.

Lord Morrow: Is it the SDLP?

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Members know the rules. There is no consensus. Someone talked about four parties reaching agreement. That is academic, because there is still not consensus.

That brings us to the end of discussion on confidence-building measures. We now move on to culture, which includes the cultures of nationalists, unionists and the ethnic minorities. As usual, each party is allowed to give a five-minute presentation on the issue. I assume that all parties will deal with all three groups together, rather than take five minutes on each. Even though Sinn Féin has covered the issue partially in its earlier submission, it will be given an opportunity to speak.

Mrs Long: I will not need five minutes. Many issues impinging on culture have been dealt with in other strands, so I just want to give an overview.

Northern Ireland is changing. Our society is increasingly diverse and multicultural and, as we look today at dealing with our culture, we need to take account of that changing society and increasing diversity. The discussion will impinge on the balance between equality and rights. For example, we will also explore some issues around parading that we previously discussed.

There is no reason why culture should be divisive. Celebration of culture in a positive and stable political context should be an enriching experience for all — both those who share the culture and those who do not. However, we do not have that political or social stability.

In Northern Ireland, culture has often been celebrated, used and abused in an aggressive and confrontational manner. Indeed, aggression has often been dressed up and rebranded as culture. Politicisation of flags and emblems and their use as territorial markers is an example of that; another is politicisation of language and the context and demeanour of parades and protests. It is not that those individual items and issues are invalid or do not have cultural merit; rather it is that they are often abused in our society and used as cultural weapons against others who disagree.

Issues around culture and confidence will not be fully addressed amid the continuing structural division in Northern Ireland — that will only happen when we work hard towards, and reach a point of having, some collective view of society, regardless of national aspirations and identities. At that point we will have a genuine and cross-cutting adherence to the notion that we have a single society and that we have to share space. In the context of cultural celebration, we will allow others to experience and express their culture, and we will have to experience and express culture in a way that is not aggressive.

This will only be fully addressed when issues around a shared future are fully addressed — that will be the crux of dealing with what has almost become cultural warfare.

Mr McCausland: As was said this morning, culture lies at the heart of creating a cohesive society. That has to be seen in the context of ‘A Shared Future’ and its vision of equity, diversity and interdependence — principles particularly appropriate when we examine cultural diversity, which is part of the cultural wealth of Northern Ireland.

I wish to begin by drawing attention to some aspects of Irish nationalist culture. Irish nationalism, whether in the form of nationalism or republicanism, is essentially cultural nationalism. The Irish cultural movement has always been essentially nationalist. When the Gaelic Athletic Association was founded in 1884, it was on the initiative of the Irish Republican Brotherhood, and it still remains the situation that trophies, grounds and clubs are named after Irish republican heroes, past and present. The constitution of the organisation also affirms its support for a united Ireland. That is an issue that needs to be addressed, and the DUP proposes that work be undertaken in collaboration with the Sports Council and the Community Relations Council towards that end.

The Gaelic League was founded in 1893. In 1914, Patrick Pearse said that it:

“will be recognised in history as the most revolutionary influence that has ever come into Ireland … The Irish revolution really began when the seven proto-Gaelic Leaguers met in O’Connell Street.”

Someone asked why language is divisive — people have been killed because of the Irish language. That drew me to the comments made by Sinn Féin at the point when it took the Irish language to the fore in 1982, after the hunger strikes. At one of its conferences, the Sinn Féin cultural officer said:

“I don’t think we can exist as a separate people without our language … every phrase you learn is a bullet in the freedom struggle.”

Another speaker that day said:

“The armed struggle is the highest point of the cultural revival”.

The gun and the Gaelic language were, in his mind, closely linked.

The statements appeared in a Sinn Féin publication, ‘Learning Irish’, which also stated:

“Everyone was agreed that there was a definite link between the National Struggle and the Cultural Revival”.

Today, most republicans are more sophisticated and subtle in their approach, but they remain intolerant of cultural traditions that are not Irish and Gaelic. They continue to seek preferential treatment for Irish and Gaelic culture. Their concept of culture has been an assimilative one based on the concept of one island, one nation and one culture. One of the gurus of the Irish Ireland movement, D P Moran, said:

“The foundation of Ireland is the Gael and the Gael must be the element that absorbs.”

In other words — and it is still the view of most republicans — they see everything being absorbed into a Gaelic Ireland identity.

On the other hand, the DUP believes in the ‘A Shared Future’ concept, which promotes equity, diversity and interdependence. Those principles are appropriate for culture. Diversity recognises the right of individuals and communities to determine their own cultural traditions and identity, whether they be Irish, Ulster Scots, orange or whatever. Equity relates to recognition, respect, resources and representation. Interdependence encourages shared learning and co-operation. However, that can only be taken forward on the basis of equity.

The Government approach over the years to cultural diversity in Northern Ireland has been extremely flawed. For many years it was based on a “two traditions” model that was equally flawed, and did not recognise the plurality that there is in Northern Ireland. In 1987, the Central Community Relations Unit (CCRU) was set up to undertake a Government programme for cultural diversity, and resulted in a briefing paper, drawn up in 1997 by the head of the unit, Tony Canavan. I shall table a copy of the paper. In a Government briefing for the Minister — undated, though it was obviously written towards the end of 1997 — can be found what led to the content of the Belfast Agreement. It is clear upon reading the document that most of the strands of the cultural element of the Belfast Agreement came from it.

The irony is that, on one hand, Tony Canavan was saying to the Minister — who, I assume, at that time was Tony Worthington — that there was a problem with Irish, in that it had been politicised and needed to be depoliticised. I would certainly commend that. He then went on to say that he wondered whether the Government should do things at the beginning or the end — would Sinn Féin take it better if they got sweeteners at the beginning, or should the Government wait until the end to do nice things for them? In other words, should we use culture for political ends — as the Government was saying — or depoliticise it? There is an inherent inconsistency in the Government’s position.

1.45 pm

The Government then said that there was another problem — Ulster Scots had emerged and they needed to find a way of dealing with that. They proposed a number of measures, which eventually found their way into the Belfast Agreement. All were based on the presumption that Ulster Scots would be played down and marginalised while the Irish language was main­streamed. That is unacceptable because it gives preferential treatment to one language and one cultural tradition.

Cultural rights should be respected. The Council of Europe Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child all contain significant cultural provisions. Unfortunately, for many people in Northern Ireland, the requirements — particularly those with regard to the Convention on the Rights of the Child — are not being implemented. That is something I will return to.

As regards the European Charter, the Government are committed to taking proactive measures to promote the Ulster-Scots language in the same way as they are committed to taking proactive measures to promote the Irish language. The distinction is that Ulster Scots has Part II status under the charter while the Irish language has Part III status. However, Part II status is not to be seen as a hindrance — rather, it is a stepping-stone to Part III status, and there should be a positive programme of action by Government to take it forward on that basis.

I move on to the overall treatment of language in several areas and the associated and attendant cultures. First, there is the cross-border language body, which has two strands — Foras na Gaeilge and the Ulster-Scots Agency. The distinction is that for every £1 that goes to the Ulster-Scots Agency to cover language and culture, £7 goes to the Irish language body. That is unacceptable.

Mr Chairman, do I have 15 minutes for the three elements?

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Technically.

Mr McCausland: That was my assumption, because there are three points.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): They are sub-headings. I will allow some latitude because you did not use your full allocation previously, but 15 minutes would be pushing your luck.

Mr McCausland: My assumption was based on last week’s meeting, at which five minutes were allowed for each point.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Clever folk ensure that their subsequent interventions last five minutes and they get their points in anyway.

Mr McCausland: It is to give some coherence.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): How much more do you have, Nelson?

Mr McCausland: Festival funding, which is a very contentious issue; education; and cultural tourism.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): I will have to ask members for their views on this.

Mr McCausland: I started on the assumption —

The Chairman (Mr Wells): I can see where the confusion arose, but if folk feel disadvantaged by this —

Mr McFarland: The position is that we have had two minutes from each party and we can take an hour if we want to discuss our own areas. That is how we have traditionally operated.

Mr McCausland: Presentations like that will lack coherence — points are linked to each other.

Mrs Long: I suggest that, within reason, we allow Mr McCausland to finish his points. It is more important that people have the opportunity to express their points than to stick rigidly to time, given that it is only 1.50 pm.

Mr McCausland: I will endeavour to be as quick as possible.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): On this occasion I can see how the confusion has arisen, but from now on I will explain clearly what is meant by sub-headings.

Mr McCausland: As regards culture in the classroom: we have a divided education system, with the controlled sector, the voluntary grammar sector, the Irish-medium sector, the integrated sector and the Roman Catholic maintained sector.

Under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, all children are entitled to the same cultural rights. Articles 29, 30 and 31 of the convention make provision for children to be taught in school about the culture of the community they come from. That is a guaranteed international convention to which the United Kingdom Government are committed.

It is clear that that happens in the Irish-medium sector, because that is its cultural ethos, and it is also true in the Roman Catholic maintained sector. In an interesting article in ‘Daily Ireland’, commentator Jude Collins said that nationalists should want to hold on to the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS) because it helps children to have an Irish view of the world and to imbibe Irish culture.

However, the one sector in which there is a weakness is the controlled sector, which has shied away from cultural identity. I argue strongly that we — and in particular the Department of Education — need to look at measures to tackle that problem. All children are entitled to the same rights. There should be guidance on cultural rights for distribution by the Department, and there should be resources to support the teaching of cultural traditions that are relevant to the child, including Ulster Scots. Appropriate elements should be incorporated into teacher training; in-service training; the training of school governors; inspection and monitoring; and information for parents and children about the rights of the child.

If that were done, every child in the controlled sector, whether from an Irish background, such as the pupils of Vere Foster in west Belfast, or from the Ulster-Scots or Chinese community, would be guaranteed its rights. It is an issue from which the Department of Education has thus far shied away. When the Department was asked to provide some funding for Ulster-Scots materials in schools, it refused to provide a single penny; however, it funds an entire Irish-medium sector. It was left to the Ulster-Scots Agency, which has only one seventh of the budget of the other body, to fund something that was the responsibility of the Department of Education.

I would like to give two examples of the fundamental issue. The question of funding for community festivals has been about for some time. Festivals such as those in west Belfast, Ardoyne and New Lodge have been given major funding. In 2006-07, the west Belfast festival was given £244,000; the Ardoyne festival was given £40,500; and the New Lodge festival was given £38,400. In explaining that away, the head of the Department for Social Development said that the funding awards were in response to representations from Gerry Adams MP on behalf of the west Belfast festival and Gerry Kelly MLA on behalf of the Ardoyne and greater New Lodge festivals.

This happened after the Government admitted that there had been a problem with funding differences in the past, and said that a scheme was to be set up to which everybody would apply equally and from which everybody would get a fair deal. What happened when that produced its results? It did not suit certain people. The head of the Department said that it did not matter about the scheme or about equality or fairness: the two Gerrys got their act together, asked for funding and got it. In 2003-04, the west Belfast festival got £393,000 — in addition to another £100,000 for the other two festivals. At the same time, not one penny came to a unionist community festival in Belfast. That inequality creates resentment and alienation in the unionist community, and that needs to be addressed.

The Tourist Board has been extremely remiss in promoting cultural tourism; it has done very little to promote any cultural tourism other than Irish cultural tourism. Northern Ireland’s cultural tourism, festivals and education system need the equality, diversity and interdependence to which the Government are committed. However, the Government’s discrimination in favour of nationalist festivals in Belfast is an example of the fundamental problem that needs to be addressed.

Mr Ferguson: Earlier, I made the point that we had to adhere to the principles of full respect for and equality of civil, political, social and cultural rights and that all citizens needed parity of esteem and freedom from discrimination. There is a proposal to that effect before the Committee.

I want to pick up on a couple of points that Nelson raised, because it is worrying that his comments seek to demonise the Irish culture in its entirety. As a consequence of our historical and social development, native Irish people have resisted colonialism, occupation and oppression, yet Nelson somehow thinks that it is OK to demonise everything that has come out of the country as a result. That is poor. It is almost like saying that native Americans or people living in occupied countries during the Second World War were wrong to resist occupation and that the occupier had a right to demonise them.

We have made the point consistently that the only times when orange culture is not welcome are the few times a year when people do not want orange marches through their areas. The other aspects of orange culture are welcome, however, and we even encourage dialogue with local residents to reach an accommodation on marches. The implication of Nelson’s comments is that he is demonising sports, dance, music and language, and that is very worrying. I do not ever remember the GAA taking thousands of kids off street corners at weekends and marching them, carrying hurley bats, through areas where they were not wanted. It is amazing that Nelson makes such implicit comparisons.

Money is invested in festivals such as the Féile in West Belfast, at which one of Nelson’s colleagues spoke last year and at which Michael McGimpsey’s brother, Chris, spoke this year. Nobody would dispute the fact that that festival promotes the social economy, the economy of the Gaeltacht quarter, tourism, and so on. The festival aids regeneration, which is something from which we can all benefit.

Inclusivity is a fundamental aspect of the Irish culture. Naomi and others mentioned that Presbyterians supported and maintained Irish culture in the nineteenth century. We also know that orange marches through Catholic villages in the eighteenth century resulted in pogroms that left people dead. I am sure that Nelson would not support that now —

Mr McCausland: On a point of information, Chairman. There was no Orange Order —

Mr Ferguson: I will not give way at the moment.

As I said, we need to promote the principles of inclusion and respect for all cultures. We will most definitely support the proposal, and I hope that Nelson will see his way to supporting our proposals.

Ms Lewsley: The key culture and identity issues can be found in the requirements in the Good Friday Agreement for parity of esteem and for just and equal treatment for the identity, culture and aspirations of both communities. I hope that all parties can agree to that approach and create a partnership, thereby establishing the conditions for reconciliation, which includes the basic need for tolerance and respect for diversity. All parties should recognise that people have the right to identify themselves as — and to be accepted as — Irish, British, or both.

We are concerned that the commitments in the agreement regarding the Irish language have not yet been fully realised. For example, TG4 is still not available throughout the North, despite endless commitments being made that it would be. Furthermore, not enough is being done to implement the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. We would like that to be developed through an Irish language Act.

We also want more to be done to recognise other languages. In particular, I would like more recognition to be given to sign language. I commend Michael McGimpsey’s role in his time as Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure. Through his Department, he at least recognised the issue and tried to deal with it.

More must also be done to ensure that minority ethnic communities can access services, goods and facilities and that they are not excluded because of language difficulties. That is particularly important considering the recent cuts in the education budget for English as a foreign language. Children from minority ethnic communities are often the key communicators for their families when visiting the doctor or even a local shop. Language is certainly a large barrier for many such people.

2.00 pm

We need to ensure that the North is a welcoming place for minority ethnic communities, which are growing significantly. That is why it is so important that we operate an inclusive equality agenda and extend the highest standards of equality protection to minority ethnic groups, using, as far as possible, the precedent of existing fair employment law.

Finally, we need a more sensitive approach to symbols. Those on public property, such as lamp-posts, should not be used to mark out territory or to intimidate. Public property belongs to all of us and should not be used for those purposes. We need living spaces with parity of esteem. When agreement cannot be found on that issue, neutrality should be the default position. That is why the SDLP proposes to make it a crime to fly flags from public property, except where that is authorised, following cross-community agreement.

Mr McGimpsey: I will start with the subject of ethnic minorities, which has not been discussed. We have seen a dramatic rise in the number of racist attacks over the past few years and a dramatic increase in the pressures and fears that ethnic communities live under in Northern Ireland. Those will continue to grow until we do something about the matter. At the very least, we need a proper cultural diversity strategy, properly budgeted and with widely agreed objectives, to deal with these issues.

There is also a need to use education to tackle the problem and to go into the schools and into the communities to discuss the issues. We know about reported racist crime and about attacks on ethnic minorities. However, we never hear about the low-level crime and abuse that is not reported — for example, where people have “Chinky” shouted at them as they walk down the street. They routinely suffer that sort of low-level abuse. Much of that should be dealt with through education. There is no use in making lists of the number of crimes and attacks unless we try to identify some of the solutions. We could talk about a strategy to deal with this, but that would produce only high-blown principles. We need to get closer to local communities. Although some efforts have been made, they really need to be budgeted properly and to have clear objectives.

As far as nationalist and unionist cultures are concerned, we have almost slipped into the shorthand of Ulster Scots for unionist and Irish for nationalist, and both those phrases are guilty by omission. When I was a Minister, I discovered that a significant proportion of unionists/Protestants do not regard themselves as Ulster Scots. Indeed, there was initially a resistance in that section to Ulster Scots. There was much public criticism from prominent writers and broadcasters within the broad unionist community. That still exists. You cannot equate Ulster Scots with all unionists or all Protestants in Northern Ireland — far from it.

Ulster Scots has, however, an important role to play. The Ulster-Scots Agency was originally set up as a language body, but I took the view, as the Minister, that the culture was much bigger than the language. Ulster Scots had been ignored officially for generations, as Nelson said. Because the language was at a particular stage of development, there was a need to codify it and to write it down. That was one activity, but there was a broader cultural area for development, including cultural tourism. We took the view that the agency should promote not only the language but the whole culture and that it should not confine itself to the island of Ireland. It had to be much broader, not least because in Irish America there are some 40 million Americans who consider themselves to be of Irish descent, of whom 56% are Scotch Irish or Ulster Scots.

There was a huge diaspora that could be tapped into for a variety of issues, not least cultural tourism. In 2001, I took part in the first Ulster-Scots Day in Washington with John Laird. The Ulster-Scots Agency, which has had a number of hiccups along the way, has in recent times developed extremely well. In the early days we were beset by issues such as underspending and handing money back. That no longer happens, and a strong case can be made for increasing the budget and funding.

It is a similar situation with the Irish language. Foras na Gaeilge took over the former Bord na Gaeilge, so it had a ready-made infrastructure and a budget of over £7 million. It expanded and, with the Ulster-Scots Agency, comes under the cross-border body An Foras Teanga or Tha Boord o Leid, the all-Ireland body for Ulster Scots and Irish. The Irish language has progressed.

Irish and Ulster Scots are parts of a shared heritage for the people of Northern Ireland. There is much that both communities can gain from both languages; they are not exclusive. A draw a line cannot be drawn around Ulster Scots to state that it is only for Protestants and unionists. The same applies with the Irish language. There can be much cross-fertilisation and common identity, which surprised me. The Irish language continues to be strong and vibrant. It was codified generations ago, so it is at a much more advanced stage of development. Irish is dealt with in part III of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, and Ulster Scots is dealt with in part II.

For those people who say that Ulster Scots is only a dialect and not a language, the European charter states quite clearly that Ulster Scots is a language. Ulster Scots is developing rapidly, and that should be strongly encouraged. Funding of the sector must also increase to the levels reached under devolution. When we took over, funding to Ulster Scots was around £100,000, and we increased that 16-fold. There were hiccups along the way when not all the money was spent, but the establishment of the infrastructure and the Ulster-Scots Agency brings huge potential for growth, which benefits everybody. There is a great potential for Ulster Scots and Scotch Irish in Irish America. If everyone from Irish America visited Northern Ireland just once, think of what that would do for tourism.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Culture covers many issues, some of which we have already debated. There is the issue of parades, which had a good airing some days ago and, to a lesser extent, integrated education, which we have also debated. When members make their comments, I ask them not to rerun those debates. That will achieve absolutely nothing.

There are issues such as broadcasting, ethnic minorities, language and festival funding that are all entirely relevant and have not been addressed before by the Friday team. We have had the five presentations, and we are in the unusual situation of having a Minister’s perspective. This is the only time that the Committee has heard from someone who was responsible for this aspect of Government. I suggest that we set aside an hour to debate the issue of culture.

Mr Poots: That would let you away for 3.30 pm.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is true. I have had a hint of a proposal from one group, and there is another proposal on its way, but so far there is nothing on the table.

Mrs Long: I want two points to be clarified. Ms Lewsley made a tentative proposal about making it an offence to fly flags. Flying flags on lamp-posts that are public property is already an offence. Planning permission is required to put up anything on a lamp-post, and most displays do not have that permission and therefore breach trespass and planning laws.

Party-political election posters are the only exception to the law that states that nothing should be attached to lamp-posts. To me, because such a law exists, the flags and emblems issue is not one of creating an offence; it is about how the existing law is enforced. I would prefer that it was not an enforcement issue, but that there was some kind of recognition that attaching flags and posters to public property is inappropriate. However, in the absence of such recognition, it becomes an enforcement issue, rather than a need to create a new law. I would like some clarification on the proposal.

Nelson referred to people’s right to be educated in their cultures. It is important that people have that right, which they may or may not choose to exercise. However, Nelson went on to say how the Department of Education had refused to fund particular educational tools for Ulster Scots. We need to discuss prioritisation and what the Department can afford. Simply because a right has been acknowledged does not mean that funding will follow. For example, as there is no central library of material, it is often the case that blind or partially sighted children do not receive their textbooks in an appropriate format until months into their courses. Those people cannot communicate or be educated without those materials. Therefore, that need would be a higher priority than cultural education, and I suspect that the pressure on educational budgets may be the reason for the Department’s withholding funding for Ulster Scots.

It is not say that people should be denied their right to a cultural education. Of course, they should not be denied that right. However, there needs to be a mature discussion on how funding can match the acknowledge­ment of people’s rights and how far the fulfilment of rights can go in the overall priorities in budgets. We must be realistic about these issues because it could be wrong to castigate a Department for not funding a particular issue. Patricia referred to subjects such as English as a second language and the problems that they have faced, whereby children cannot access education. If we were to try to prioritise those subjects, we may find that there are higher priorities. That may have been the simple calculation made by the Department of Education. Therefore, we need to be careful that we do not prejudge the Department’s attitude based on its actions due to its budget constraints.

Ms Lewsley: Naomi mentioned the proposal to make flying flags from public property a crime. I do not know whether I made this point, but Naomi was right to say that it is an enforcement issue. We go round the houses on this issue: the Department of the Environment blames the police, and the police blame someone else, and so on. It needs to be enshrined in legislation that a certain body or organisation will take control of the issue and move it forward.

My first proposal is that the parties accept the principle of parity of esteem and just and equal treatment for the identity, culture and aspirations of all communities.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Patricia, will you repeat the proposal?

Ms Lewsley: That the parties accept the principle of parity of esteem and just and equal treatment for the identity, culture and aspirations of all communities.

Mr McFarland: That is in the agreement.

Mr McCausland: What does “aspirations” mean in this regard? It could mean a million things. We have already used the word about 10 times today.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Will you read the last line again, Patricia?

Ms Lewsley: In the agreement, it says “both communities”, but because of multi-cultural diversity in Northern Ireland, it should be changed to “all communities”.

Mr McCausland: Are they political aspirations or cultural aspirations?

Ms Lewsley: I am referring to cultural aspirations: cultural identity and equal treatment.

Mr McCausland: If the context of the word “aspirations” was clarified and the word cultural was added, the proposal would be much clearer.

Ms Lewsley: The proposal refers to the “identity, culture and aspirations”.

Mr McCausland: Cultural aspirations?

Ms Lewsley: No, culture and aspirations.

Mr McCausland: The difficulty is that the word “aspirations” makes the proposal vague and harder for parties to support.

Mr Poots: Are both proposals being retained?

The Chairman (Mr Wells): There is a proposal concerning the illegality of flying flags on public property.

2.15 pm

Ms Lewsley: No, that was not a proposal for this Committee.

I have two further proposals, the first of which is that the parties recognise the right of people to identify themselves and be accepted as British or Irish or both, as they so choose.

Mr McFarland: Those matters are all contained in the Belfast Agreement and have been thrashed out by parties.

[Inaudible due to mobile phone interference.]

The flying of flags on buildings is fundamental to the constitutional question. It has been settled that Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom until there is a vote to the contrary. However, attempts are consistently being made to dilute that position by suggesting the flying of two flags, or no flags, and by raising the question of neutrality. This Committee is starting to renegotiate the Belfast Agreement on such matters. We are here to identify the impediments to restoration. I do not mind members’ submitting proposals, provided they are likely to achieve some consensus. However, if we start to rewrite the Belfast Agreement, we will achieve no consensus.

Mr Poots: We may not reach agreement, but if the SDLP wants to renegotiate the Belfast Agreement, the DUP is up for that.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Patricia, do you have a further proposal?

Ms Lewsley: The SDLP’s second proposal is that the Committee agrees to recognise sign language along with other languages.

Mr McGuigan: I need some clarification. I have no problem recognising sign language, but it is probably not a matter for this Committee: it is an issue of equality rather than culture.

Mrs Long: There are cultural issues relating to sign language. Members of the deaf community consider sign language to be a cultural expression as well as a means of communication.

Dr Birnie: I have three points further to my colleague Michael’s comments on racism and race-related issues.

Why are we talking about race issues in the Preparation for Government Committee? Someone from outside the Committee may ask whether they are direct impediments to devolution — although they are hugely important. Perhaps it has been hinted at in the past few minutes of discussion, but the answer is that there is a danger in emphasising the two-communities model of the problems in Northern Ireland over the past four decades and in the extent to which policies in the Belfast Agreement, or any future agreement, perhaps neglect people who do not wish to define themselves within the “two communities”.

We should try to examine several myths relating to race and racism. On 10 January 2004, ‘The Guardian’ ran an article in which it was stated that Northern Ireland was:

“fast becoming the race-hate capital of Europe.”

In a subsequent article on 26 June 2006, the same newspaper dropped that “fast becoming” qualification, thus implying that Northern Ireland is now the race-hate capital of Europe. It is worth checking whether that horrendous allegation is true. As my colleague Michael rightly said, there has been a huge increase in racially motivated incidents, particularly over the past five years. The most recent figures show that in 2005-06, the PSNI recorded 936 racially motivated incidents in Northern Ireland.

The latest Home Office figure for racially motivated incidents for 2003-04 in England and Wales is 52,694. The figures may be unreliable, but they are the best and the most up to date that we have. However, the figures are significant. The population here is 1·7 million, and there are roughly 53 million people in England and Wales; thus, the rate of attacks per head of population in Northern Ireland is “only” half that in England — although, clearly, any level of racist attack or abuse is unacceptable.

Mrs Long: The allegation that Northern Ireland is the race-hate capital of Europe is not based on the rate of attack per head of general population, but attack per head of the ethnic minority population. The ethnic minority population is considerably lower in Northern Ireland than in England, but the rate of attack per head of that population is higher than anywhere in Europe.

Dr Birnie: I thank Naomi for her intervention. Statistically speaking, she is entirely correct. However, it is simply a product of the fact that the ethnic minority population here is one third or one quarter of that in England — although that is perhaps open to some dispute. On the basis of the same statistics, a member of the traditional or settled population here — or whatever phrase you want to use — is much less likely to be the perpetrator of a racist attack. I do not mean to be complacent about the situation here, but that puts it into perspective.

I want to mention briefly the obvious issue of how we respond to that level of racism. We could argue about how large the problem is, but there clearly is a problem, and it must be dealt with.

The Government introduced ‘A Racial Equality Strategy for Northern Ireland’ in July 2005, which is to be rolled out over 10 years. The first annual imple­mentation action plan was published in April. All parties in a future devolved Executive should check on the implementation of that strategy to ensure that it is on track. Various non-governmental organisations (NGOs), from the business sector and from those represented by, for example, the Concordia umbrella group, have suggested the adoption of an inter-agency approach to ensure the proper treatment and integration of the growing number of migrant workers in the workforce — the numbers have increased by at least 16,000 in the past two years.

Earlier this year, the Electoral Commission pointed out the very low voter registration rate of about 40% for the ethnic minorities here. Of the 40% who registered, perhaps only half voted. Increasing that participation is a challenge for all our parties, including my own. The UUP is attempting to rise to the challenge by translating policy statements on the party website into at least eight overseas languages. We have also lobbied on the “English as an additional language” issue, which was mentioned earlier.

The increase in the temporary or migrant worker population has wider social and, ultimately, political significance in many areas, including housing. A policy area to which my party — like others — is committed involves houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) and housing stress. We support the move towards a cap on the maximum percentage of houses in an area that can, or should, be HMOs, although we wonder whether the current capped rate of 30% is too high.

Mr McCausland: I will first turn to the issue of identity.

My difficulty with the SDLP’s approach is that it misses the emphasis on the multi-layered nature of identity. The phrase “British, Irish, or both” was used. There may be people who wish to be British and Ulster Scots, or British and Irish, or whatever combination. Identify is multi-layered. We have a series of identities — cultural, national and regional — and people should be able to pick and choose. The Committee is dealing with cultural identify, and the DUP’s view is that all cultures should be treated on the basis of equity, diversity and interdependence. The Government are already committed to that, and society should be committed to it, in that people have signed up to a shared future.

On the issue of education, and the cost of providing what I talked about: it is not so much a question of money as a question of commitment. The Department of Education should initiate a programme of work to ensure that the cultural rights of children, as set out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, are fulfilled. The inspectorate does not monitor that, and after 18 months of meetings with the Depart­ment of Education, the DUP is no further forward in getting any understanding on it.

Simply producing guidance for schools, governors, teachers and colleges about what it means, the cost of which would be minimal — a few thousand pounds and a few postage stamps — would be a major step in that direction. In the context of the budget of the Department of Education, the level of funding required to produce an information pack would have been minuscule, but in the context of a cross-border body — the Ulster-Scots Agency, which at the time had a budget of only £1·7 million — it would have been a major amount of money. It is not a question of prioritising: there is no need to prioritise, as it is not a budgetary issue. It is an issue of commitment and awareness.

I want to highlight another issue — a reserved matter — that illustrates the problems we face. In 2004-05, there were 5·47 hours of Irish-language broadcasting on television and nothing in Ulster Scots; on the radio, Ulster Scots got 6·7 hours at a cost of £28,490, and Irish got 260·58 hours at a cost of £240,000. There is an issue about the commitment of radio broadcasting. The DUP asked for a half-hour programme once a week on the radio, but even that could not be delivered.

Mr McCarthy: Is Ulster Scots in a catch-up situation? Nobody knew about Ulster Scots for years, and as a result there was a lack of funding. When the Assembly wanted to employ someone as an Ulster-Scots interpreter, it could not find anyone. That may be moving forward, but it should be taken into consideration.

Mr McCausland: Mr McCarthy’s point is valid in that Ulster Scots is lagging behind, and people are trying to move forward fast on the issue. However, there must be a commitment to catch up. We should not be in a position where the spending ratio, which was £1 to £7 several years ago, is still £1 to £7. There should be a programme over a limited period — five, six, seven years or whatever — to move towards equality. However, there must be a commitment and a timescale.

I found it utterly intolerable that the Government set up a pilot scheme for festivals and set aside money, and then ran a coach and horses through it.

I was amazed by Mr Ferguson’s comments about the demonisation of the Irish language. The only people who demonise the Irish language are those who say that it is another bullet in the struggle for freedom. Those people demonise the language because they corrupt it and abuse it for political ends.

2.30 pm

I propose that we ask the Department of Education to initiate a programme of work to ensure that the cultural rights of children, as set out in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, are implemented and monitored across all school sectors. The proposal does not make a distinction between children’s cultural identities. They could be Chinese, Japanese, Ulster Scots or Irish. That is a matter that is determined in children’s homes. I hope that that proposal is sufficiently inclusive to cater for the requirements of all parties.

A proposal on flags was suggested earlier. We propose that, as part of the contribution to a shared future, the GAA be asked to work with the Sports Council and the Community Relations Council to ensure that Gaelic sport is depoliticised.

Mr McFarland: Culture can be a confusing issue and one on which, as Dermot said, we in Northern Ireland are prone to navel-gazing. We do not have a good knowledge of our history. Republicans have a unique version of history. It has a go at the Brits and the English. It airbrushes unionists out of the equation as Irish people who have become a bit confused but who will eventually come round. It ignores history.

For a long period of our history, the north and east of the island of Ireland formed part of the “Kingdom of the Isles”. The kingdom also included Scotland and was ruled by Somerled, who was of Celtic and Norse descent. Ireland could not be travelled easily because of its forests and bogs, so people moved around by sea. If a big ring were drawn around the north of the British Isles, it would encompass the kingdom of the isles.

A series of events followed, culminating in the plantations. Several eminent families came across from Scotland. For example, the Adamses, a famous family from the Scottish lowlands, came across, as did the Hume family and, indeed, the Fergusons. They were all lowland Scots. What has become of them? Some have become Irish republicans or prominent nationalists. That is confusing; that was not supposed to happen. Culture is supposed to be simple. I am afraid, however, that it is not.

The Scots-Irish went to America, where they formed the backbone of the army that fought against the English in the War of Independence. That does not make sense: we are Ulster Scots — we do not fight the English. We led the American War of Independence. George Washington is on record as saying that if all went wrong, he would take his last stand with the Scots-Irish in Virginia. That does not compute with our current understanding of culture here. There have been many American Presidents of Irish descent. Traditionally, people from Southern Ireland have left these shores for America and have contributed to the country that it is today.

Anglicans — Church of Ireland people — led the great Gaelic revival. Presbyterians were the saviours of the Irish language. There simply would no longer be an Irish language if Presbyterians had not, in the 1840s, decided to keep it alive. Sam Maguire, whose name is on Gaelic football’s all-Ireland championship cup, was a Prod. It is not supposed to be like that. Culture is confusing and not at all straightforward.

Mr McCausland: Will Mr McFarland take a point of information?

The Chairman (Mr Wells): About Sam Maguire?

Mr McCausland: He was also a terrorist, and he was the intelligence officer for the Irish Republican Brotherhood who helped to ensure the assassination of Sir Henry Wilson.

Mr McFarland: Even more confusing, Chairman. [Laughter.]

Mr Ferguson: That is who he was referring to earlier.

Mr McFarland: Prods are not supposed to do that. Culture is not simple; it is confusing. However, we tend to parcel it up with such things as the purity of being Ulster Scots, unionist or Protestant, or Catholic, nationalist or republican. It is confusing.

People are beginning to vote with their feet on this. Tribal attitudes are losing the battle, and young people are going their own way. Young people are voting with their feet, and church attendances are dropping dramatically in the Irish Republic and in Northern Ireland.

I was interested in a recent incentive set up by the Irish Government, in which €300 was offered to any family who would go to live in the Gaeltacht in Galway. Nobody wants to live there, because young people want to speak English.

There is common culture developing, but it is not culture as we know it. Everyone in Dublin watches the same television programmes that we watch, and which people in Scotland, England and Wales are watching. That is where young people are getting their culture. Young people in Dublin are not wearing Shelbourne football shirts; they are wearing Manchester United or Liverpool shirts. Common culture is taking over. Young people are not singing Irish, Scottish or any other tradition’s folk songs. In every country across Europe — or, it could be argued, across the world — people are listening to the same music on their iPods. Most young children are not interested in culture.

With the advent of air travel, the great navel-gazing attitude that we have about whether we are Ulster Scots or Irish and what passport we have is irrelevant; our children are winging in and out of Thailand and the Far East, and are travelling to Australia and around the world. Shortly, local culture will not be important. One might think that that is an argument for keeping the Irish and Ulster-Scots traditions alive. Before long, most people in the country will not be interested.

It is important that we keep the cultures going, but we should not be so neurotic about it, because it is not the issue to most people in our community that it is to politicians and the political parties.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Who will follow that? Philip McGuigan?

Mr McGuigan : I will follow that, and I will attempt to be brief. I am no great cultural historian. I listened to Nelson talk about culture and equality in the same terms, and he went on to use 10 of his 15 minutes to castigate Irish culture and the GAA. At this point I should declare an interest, as I am a member of the GAA — a fine organisation that does a lot of good in helping to facilitate communities.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is a useful point. Is anyone else a member of the GAA?

Mr McCarthy: I am an active playing member of Ballycran.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): A playing member or a paying member?

Mrs Long: It depends on how short of people they are. [Laughter.]

Mr McGuigan: Young people are voting with their feet. Anybody who is trying to get a ticket for the all-Ireland hurling final this Sunday will know how difficult it is, because young people are clamouring to get to those games. The objective of this Committee is to bring forward recommendations or proposals to prepare for Government.

We are never going to agree on the different aspects and specifics of this matter. I would like us to come up with a broad sentiment that encompasses all of this. As my colleague has said, and as was previously negotiated in the Good Friday Agreement, it should allow respect for, and adherence to, the principles and equality of all people’s cultures and their culture rights. The specific issues can be dealt with by an Executive when it is set up. We could go round in circles attacking various parts of other people’s culture; however, it would be more productive to come up with a broad principle on which we can all agree and move forward.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Everyone has given this a reasonable airing. We shall now go through the proposals, of which there are quite a few.

No one explained where the Lewsleys came from. I was listening to Mr McFarland, but he did not explain where that name came from.

Ms Lewsley: I do not know. I only married into them. [Laughter.]

Mrs Long: Although it has been an interesting discussion, I am not sure that it is taking us in any particular direction. What we have noted is that identity, if separated out from culture, is a complex issue; it is multilayered, and people have the right to define their own identity. That is a basic point of principle with which I agree, and it is something that we have been pushing in other strands of this discussion. People have the right to define their own identity and not be pigeonholed.

Something interesting has arisen from our discussions on these matters in the context of preparation for Government. First, let us examine our society and its changing nature; not only increasing diversity due to immigration, but the changing nature of the people who live in society, their expression of their own identity and their exercise of the right to do that. There has to be some recognition that the current political structures, which are built on a “two communities” model, are not a long-term solution to the tensions and divisions in our society.

We do not believe that there are two mutually exclusive communities in Northern Ireland. It is clear — by everything that has been said here — that the amount of interplay and interaction, change and redefinition, proves that there are not two mutually exclusive communities which have no contact, no intermingling and no cross-contamination — whatever way you want to put it. We must get real, because in previous weeks we strayed into issues on which people were being accused of being racist. Members disagreeing, for example, with a nationalist or unionist perspective were using the term ‘racist’. Today we are arriving at the realisation that that is a falsehood, that that is not the case, and that people can have different opinions, but it is not a collective block.

The second important point is that when we examine models for governing society — the constructs that we set up, whether for festivals, funding, cultural expression or whatever else it might be — those need to be robust and flexible enough to deal with changing society and changing identities in society. Some of this discussion has been useful in clarifying how dangerous it is for us to get locked into a “two communities” mode of thinking and a “two communities” form of words.

That moves me on to the proposal put by Patricia Lewsley, which contains the phrase “parity of esteem”. It is the form of words — not the principle behind it — that we would not support. “Parity of esteem” is a loaded term and is one with which we are not comfortable. It is a construction based on the premise of “separate but equal”, which as a party we do not adhere to or accept. If the phrase “parity of esteem” were removed we would be happy with the over­arching theme of the proposal.

Identity is complicated and difficult. It is interesting, but it is not a barrier to people’s working together. People’s cultural identity and expression should not be a barrier to their working together. If we spent as much time and energy considering where we are going and what kind of society we are becoming as we do belabouring the issue of where we have come from and what we have been, we would be a much more aspirational, confident and welcoming society. We need to focus on culture and identity, not simply looking over our shoulder, but looking to a future that offers plenty of opportunities for people from a range of different backgrounds.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Can members set aside the spectre of Kieran playing GAA and move back four hours — not forty years — to Mr Ferguson’s original proposal that Irish speakers should have the same rights as Welsh speakers in Wales and Scots Gaelic speakers in Scotland, that there should be an Irish language Act, that the British Government should ratify the Council of Europe Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, and that the Government should issue publications in Irish. Those are four separate issues.

Mr Ferguson: I had it down to three issues, because I put it down in three paragraphs.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Could we have it in English?

Mr McCausland: I cannot understand any reference to ratifying the European Charter. It was ratified years ago.

Mr Ferguson: Let me explain, and then you can disagree.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Perhaps you would read it out.

Mr Ferguson: We proposed an Irish language Act — go raibh mo leithscéal — with language rights incorporated into a bill of rights, and overseen by the appointment of an Irish language commissioner.

We also proposed that the British Government ratify the additional clauses of the Council of Europe Charter for Regional or Minority Languages through the promotion of the language in public life.

Finally, we proposed that the British Government and Departments communicate through the medium of Irish when requested and make their publications available in Irish.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): I will take those issues as a whole.

Ms Lewsley: I would like clarification on the final issue. Is Mr Ferguson saying that the British Govern­ment and Departments should communicate through the medium of Irish “when requested”?

Mr Ferguson: Yes.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do we have consensus on the proposal?

2.45 pm

Mr Ferguson: I wish to make one final point. I am concerned about the point that Nelson raised in relation to the failure to fund Ulster-Scots projects. Michael McGimpsey said that the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure had increased the budget sixteenfold, but it could not be spent. It is appalling that the demand was not met. I would be equally appalled if it was the Irish language, and I would protest that fact. You would have my full support on that. If there is a genuine demand for it, it should be met.

Mr McFarland: The Belfast Agreement set out systems that were put in place regarding language and bodies, and those are the forums within which those issues are discussed and developed. I am not sure why we are bringing up the issues in this forum.

Mr McCausland: The weakness is that the Belfast Agreement gave eight solid commitments to the Irish language and none to Ulster Scots; it merely recognised it.

Mr McCarthy: Ulster Scots was in there, because I remember going back to the Good Friday Agreement and including Ulster Scots in it.

Mr McCausland: There were eight commitments, including TG4 reception, but Ulster Scots only got a mention. In fact, the civil servants who drafted the document were clever enough not to use the word “language”, so that they could revert to the dialect argument. The issue has moved on from the Belfast Agreement.

Mr McFarland: It has moved on, but wheels were put in place to take this forward. There is an Ulster-Scots Academy, many bodies deal with Ulster Scots, and it has received funding. However, the development of languages should be taken forward within those groupings that have been set up in the agreement.

Mr Ferguson: I had recent cause to bring the Irish language sector group to meet the direct rule Minister of Education, Maria Eagle, because since the collapse of the institutions there has been a clear rollback in meeting the commitments that were signed up to in the agreement. That includes the responsibility of the Department of Education to pick up on Foras na Gaeilge commitments after five years, which it failed to do. I had to bring Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta and Forbairt Feirste to meet with the Minister recently about a range of development commitments that the Department did not meet. There are major areas of concern, and we include this simply because it is about confidence building and reinforcing what was agreed to, but which many civil servants are rolling back on.

Mr McFarland: It is difficult for me to agree because I do not know enough about it.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes, but Alan, you are reopening the debate. The only questions that I can accept are those seeking clarification of the wording of the proposal. It is quite clear that people understand the proposal. Is there consensus on the proposal?

Members indicated dissent.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): The answer is clearly “no”, so we shall move on. I suggest that we move to Patricia Lewsley’s proposal on sign language, which I regard as a less contentious issue. Let us get that out of the way before we move on to more difficult issues.

The proposal is that the Committee agrees that the same recognition should be given to sign language as to other languages. Is there consensus on that?

Mr McCausland: We need some clarification on that.

Ms Lewsley: I would like sign language to be given the same recognition as Ulster Scots and Irish.

Mr McCausland: Could I ask for clarification? The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages contains requirements and conditions as to what constitutes a regional language and a minority language. Does sign language meet those requirements?

Ms Lewsley: My understanding is that that situation has changed because the charter mentions lesser-spoken languages and does not recognise sign language as a spoken language.

Mr McFarland: Chairman, sign language is not a language; it is a way of communicating in English or Irish for people who cannot speak.

Ms Lewsley: It is still a language; it is how people communicate with each other, and it is not specifically —

Mr Ferguson: It is also a disability issue.

Mr McFarland: Traditionally, it has been a health issue. I agree that it must be dealt with, and I have been involved in championing the issue in the past when I was health spokesman for my party. It is an issue of equality that must be dealt with and should be given funding. However, I am not sure that sign language can be put into the category of the European charter as a separate language within the understanding of European law.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Patricia, what is your point of view on that?

Ms Lewsley: I would like it to be put it to the vote. People can support it if they wish.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Patricia has listened, and she still wishes to put her proposal to the meeting. Is there consensus on Patricia’s proposal?

Mr McFarland: If you were to change the word “language” —

Ms Lewsley: It is called sign language. What do you want to call it?

Mr Ferguson: This is an issue, Alan, because, as you know, people who want to be trained in sign language have to go to England. It is a cross-cutting issue.

Mr McFarland: I am fully supportive of the need to have signing trainers here. That is a disability and rights issue. I am a bit worried because we have suddenly lumped it into the middle of culture and European legislation on languages. I understand the problem, but we are in danger of dealing with it in entirely the wrong format.

Mr McCausland: By going down a road that is unclear, there is a danger of our not actually helping people. I have a fair amount of knowledge of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages; I have been working on it for years. If you look at the requirements of the charter, and what it seeks to do, it does not meet the needs, aspirations and requirements of that particular community. They would get something that would be of no value to them, and that might not even be capable of implementation.

An amendment about adequate provision would be universally agreed. Whatever is required should be provided — I think that you would get absolute unanimity on that. That would have meaning. To tie this matter into the charter is —

Ms Lewsley: The big message that I am getting from the deaf community is the need for recognition of sign language. That community believes that sign language does not get the same recognition or priority as Irish or Ulster Scots.

Mr McCausland: The problem with that is that much of the charter’s work on Irish and Ulster Scots is to do with developing a text base or developing dictionaries. That is about language planning. That is not an issue, as far as I am aware, for sign language. Therefore, I suspect —

The Chairman (Mr Wells): We are getting into a debate.

Ms Lewsley: We can change the wording of the proposal to “the recognition and provision for sign language”.

Mr McCausland: Yes. Just do not mention the charter.

Ms Lewsley: I did not mention the charter. I have not mentioned it.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do we have consensus on that? Can you read the amended proposal, please, to refresh our memories?

Ms Lewsley: The proposal is that the parties agree the principle of greater recognition and provision for sign language.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is everyone happy with that?

Members indicated assent.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Patricia proposed that the Committee recognise the rights of people to identify themselves and be accepted as British, Irish, or both, as they choose. Is there consensus on that?

Mr McFarland: That is written into the Belfast Agreement.

Ms Lewsley: But not all parties around this table agree to the Belfast Agreement.

Mr McFarland: But hopefully they are about to, if we can quietly shuffle this through to the autumn. [Laughter.]

Mrs Long: That is a huge assumption.

Mr McCausland: We are dealing today with culture. We are not dealing with political aspirations. The word “aspiration” was unqualified; therefore, I personally could not agree to that.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): The word “aspiration” actually is not in the proposal, Nelson: the proposal is that the Committee recognise the rights of people to identify themselves and be accepted as British, Irish, or both, as they choose.

Mr McFarland: Or neither, Chairman.

Mrs Long: Chairman, that is exactly the point that I was going to raise. Human rights law protects the right not to be associated with any national minorities. If people can be British, Irish or both, you must accept that they can also be neither. In fact, it may not be helpful to specify those two particular identities.

Mr McCausland: If we are dealing with culture, could we add “and Ulster Scots”? That is a cultural identity. We are dealing with culture, not nationality.

Mrs Long: That is why I was suggesting that it would not be helpful to start to be specific in this way. If we specify “British, Irish, Ulster Scots” then we can start again and look at Chinese, Japanese, etc. Where does the list end? Can we not simply accept that people have the right to define themselves?

Ms Lewsley: I withdraw the proposal. It is not worth the hassle. It is getting too late on a Friday afternoon.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Patricia has withdrawn the proposal. Her next proposal is that we accept the principle of parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment for the identity, culture and aspirations of all communities.

Mr McFarland: It is not at all clear what that means. Those of us who were in the discussions leading to the agreement spent months on this.

Ms Lewsley: Just put it to the vote.

Mr McFarland: It was very carefully crafted so that everybody could live with what was in it. If we are now trying to tie stuff down we will have to tease out the detail of what it means.

Ms Lewsley: There is no consensus on it.

Members indicated dissent.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have several more proposals from Nelson. First, that this Committee requests that the Department of Education initiate a programme of work to ensure that the cultural rights of the child as set out in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child are implemented and monitored across all sectors.

Mr McFarland: What does that say, Chairman? What is it about? What are the rights? We have not had a discussion on what we are actually talking about here and I am unsighted, being a —

Ms Lewsley: Can I just ask for clarification? Part of the problem for me is that the Government often sign up to UN conventions and never follow them through. They agree and make a commitment, but in reality it never comes to fruition.

Mr McCausland: Article 29 says:

“States Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to … the development of respect for the child’s parents, his or her own cultural identity, language and values”.

Article 30 provides that:

“In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities or persons of indigenous origin exist, a child belonging to such a minority or who is indigenous shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of his or her group, to enjoy his or her own culture, to profess and practice his or her own religion, or to use his or her own language”.

Article 31 reads:

“States Parties recognize the right of the child to rest and leisure”.

However, it is the second paragraph of that article:

“encourage the provision of appropriate and equal opportunities for cultural, artistic, recreational and leisure activity”,

which says that children in all sectors of primary and secondary education should have an equal right to access the culture of the community and the home from which they come as well as the wider culture of the community, so that there is a certain element of cohesion and no fragmentation. It should be applied equally to all children. The British Government have signed up to it, therefore we are simply asking that it be monitored and implemented.

3.00 pm

Mr McFarland: Is it an education or a cultural issue?

Mr McCausland: It is a cultural issue.

Ms Lewsley: The Department of Education would take the lead on it.

Mr McCausland: It also applies to youth clubs, and so on.

Mr McFarland: What are we calling on them to do?

The Chairman (Mr Wells): To initiate a programme of work.

Mr Ferguson: To monitor and evaluate the implementation —

Ms Lewsley: — of something they have signed up to.

Mr McCausland: We are asking them to implement the requirements. In other words, we are asking them to deliver what they have promised but have not yet done.

Mr McFarland: We had several days of discussion on socio-economic rights and a long discussion about bills of rights and about what is deliverable. It is one thing to have a right, but whether that right is fulfilled will depend on the politicians’ ability to provide the money. It strikes me that we are saying that if, for example, someone’s medical treatment costs £10,000 a day and there is a right to it in law, the Government must provide it.

Ms Lewsley: It is not as simple as that.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Nelson has explained it. Members understand the proposal. Is there consensus?

Members indicated assent.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): The next proposal from Nelson is that the Committee ask the GAA to work with the Sports Council for Northern Ireland and the Community Relations Council to ensure that Gaelic sport is depoliticised as part of its contribution to a shared future. It is pretty clear what that means. Do we have consensus?

Members indicated dissent.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): That completes Nelson’s proposals.

We have a proposal from the Sinn Féin group that we respect an adherence to the principles of equality for all.

Ms Lewsley: That is not a cultural issue; it is an equality issue. We agreed a proposal on that last week.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): I read it out as it has been mentioned.

Mr McCausland: Can I put an amendment to that?

Mr McGuigan: I was not making a formal proposal. It was a suggestion that we reaffirm what is in the agreement.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): It was noted just in case you meant it as a proposal.

Mr McFarland: It will be in Hansard.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): As far as I am aware, all proposals have been dealt with.

There are three issues that we have to get out of the way today. The first concerns the DUP. On 11 August, I chaired the meeting at which the DUP made a proposal to split the Parades Commission’s functions in order to create a mediation body and a determination body. The issue was discussed but the proposal was not put. The Committee received copies of the proposal to consider, but the matter never actually got to the decision stage. Does Nelson wish to put the proposal to the Committee now and invite members to consider it?

Mr McCausland: The current arrangement has a number of flaws. One is that there is clearly a conflict between the ethos of mediation and the ethos of determination. It would facilitate progress on the issues of parades and protests if the two aspects, which are currently set into one body, were separated.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): No views have been expressed on this. The question is whether the Committee wishes to take up the proposal. We have to make a decision today or it will be too late to get it into the report.

Mr McFarland: The UUPAG broadly supports the proposal, although we would go further in that the Parades Commission has lost the confidence of the community and should be removed. We would replace it with a mediation system and a tribunal, so my party would modify the proposal.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): The only decision we can take today is whether to take forward the DUP proposal.

Mr McCausland: It is a question of semantics. The UUPAG proposal is the same: separation of function is the core element.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Naomi, you indicated that you did not agree.

Mrs Long: We proposed having further discussions because we thought that there might be merit in splitting the two functions for reasons that I outlined at the time. However, it is being suggested that there should be two separate bodies. We do not believe that that is necessarily a viable way forward so we would agree with the proposal. We believe that there is merit in examining a split between the determination and arbitration functions and the mediation function.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do we have a consensus?

Members indicated dissent.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Two parties are not happy with the principles. That is that out of the way.

At the meeting of 18 August, the Committee agreed to defer a decision on a law-and-order issue. The issue was whether the Assembly might have power devolved to it — along with policing and justice powers — which involved appointments to the Parades Commission and its operation. The issue has come to us for consideration for possible referral back to what is known as the “Wednesday group”.

Ms Lewsley: The SDLP has no problem with that as long as safeguards are in place and appointments are approved by the Executive.

Mr Ferguson: Sinn Féin’s position is that all public appointments should be made within the context of a functioning Executive. Beyond that, we would not support the proposal.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): This would happen after devolution, and there are the issues of a petition of concern and cross-community voting. All sorts of issues can be raised if there is a problem. Do members have views on the suggestion?

Mr McCausland: The DUP is opposed to the existence of the Parades Commission, so it would be difficult for the party to take a position on something that it does not agree with.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): The party could simply say nothing and let it go through or vote against it. The party has both options.

Are there any other comments?

Mrs Long: Given the context in which there would be devolution of powers on policing and justice, the Alliance Party sees no argument for this power being reserved.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is there consensus on the proposal?

Members indicated dissent.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): The proposal falls. The Committee does not wish to see that power devolved.

The next item on the agenda is a letter from Prof Monica McWilliams, who is well know to many people in the room. She is the chief commissioner of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, and she has written to Mr Molloy and me suggesting a meeting — a one-night residential — on 19 and 20 September 2006 between members of the Preparation for Government Committee and the commission to discuss a bill of rights.

Prof McWilliams read the Committee’s comments on the work of the Equality Commission with great interest, and she felt that a meeting would be very useful. It is something that had been suggested before but was postponed. It is for members to decide. There is a suggestion that the work of the Committee will continue after we have reported, and there may be an opportunity for the meeting to take place. We have various experts in this field and we will start with Ms Lewsley.

Ms Lewsley: Thank you very much. Is that a compliment, for a change? [Laughter].

As we reached consensus on the need for a bill of rights, I cannot see why the Committee cannot support the proposed meeting.

Mr Ferguson: I agree with Ms Lewsley on the need for a bill of rights, but we have only just received this proposal. We wish to give this matter further consider­ation, and we will reply as expeditiously as possible.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is a valid point. The difficulty is that — because of time pressure — we need to reply very soon. Members may need to consult their parties and provide an answer through their representatives at Monday’s Preparation for Government meeting. In some cases, those will be the same members who are present today.

Mr McFarland: I understood that Prof McWilliams had spoken to most political parties separately and that she was expecting parties to be able to agree in principle today, if not on the detail. We would wish to see the detail of any proposed discussions. If those discussions simply concern the political parties and the Equality Commission, that is fine. We do not wish to get drawn into a public debate on the wider matter of NGOs. If it is just — as it seems to be — a discussion under the Chatham House rule with the parties, that seems logical. Many parties suggested that represent­atives of the Equality Commission should appear before the Committee. If we are to have a genuinely serious discussion under the Chatham House rule about the shape of a bill of rights — given the caveats that we have discussed at some length — that seems quite sensible.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): I have been alerted to a possible problem: we may have plenary sittings of the Assembly on those days.

Mr McFarland: The proposed meeting is an overnighter, is it not?

Ms Lewsley: It is all day on 20 September.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): The proposed meeting is at lunch time on Tuesday 20 September, but the Preparation for Government Committee dealing with law and order will be discussing its report that day. We can agree in principle whether we wish to accept the invitation, but the mechanics will have to be considered.

Mr McFarland: If the meeting were to involve only the human rights or equality whizzo from each party, that may not make a big dent in representation in the Chamber.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Prof McWilliams is thinking of something more than that. She rang me this morning and is very keen to meet as many members of the Preparation for Government Committee as possible.

Ms Lewsley: Some parties are not able to say whether or not they are supportive.

Mr Ferguson: We agree in principle.

Ms Lewsley: Chairman, we could agree in principle to accept the invitation, and you could speak to Prof McWilliams to outline some of the possible problems, particularly with respect to Assembly sittings.

Mrs Long: I agree.

Mr McCausland: I would prefer to wait until Monday to give a firm commitment. I need to pass information on and get an opinion from my party.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): I believe that Prof McWilliams was going to contact Mrs Foster, who, as you know, is indisposed at the moment. Prof McWilliams might have had difficulty in contacting Mrs Foster. The DUP would prefer that we deal with the matter first thing on Monday and get it out of the way.

Mr McFarland: Chairman, can we agree on this matter, subject to confirmation from the DUP? Would that be logical?

Ms Lewsley: We agree, subject to confirmation.

Mr McFarland: If the DUP disagrees, the matter will have to come back before the Committee.

Mrs Long: I am not sure where we are on reaching agreement, but we must, at least, get back to Prof McWilliams about the conflict with the plenary sitting. Regardless of other commitments, the proposed meeting will conflict with the plenary sitting of the Assembly, and it will therefore not be possible for our members to be involved in the afternoon session.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): I shall explain the situation to Prof McWilliams. She of all people will understand the difficulties that we face in the Assembly.

There is one other issue. The next meeting of the Preparation for Government Committee is on Monday 4 September when we shall deal with institutional issues. The next meeting of the Preparation for Government Committee dealing with equality, rights, safeguards and victims will be on Friday 8 September.

Mrs Long: We have reached the last item on our agenda.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): The draft report must be considered, so next Friday’s meeting is very important.

Mrs Long: Will we receive a copy of the draft report before the meeting?

The Committee Clerk: We hope to send that to members on Wednesday.

Adjourned at 3.14 pm.

< previous / next >