Northern Ireland Assembly

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The First Minister has stated that the proposed arrangements for the Civic Forum, as it is within the remit of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, need to be formalised. He also stated that the Civic Forum has met twice, set up its programme of work and given an important response to the Programme for Government, which we would also like to hear. The First Minister also stated that he and the Deputy First Minister have consulted with the Forum and that the arrangements which they have put in place shall be reviewed at the end of the year. He did not, however, indicate which year. He also said that the Civic Forum supported the motion, that he and the Deputy First Minister supported the independence of the Forum and that they had no intention of preventing it from addressing whatever issues it chooses.

I welcome the First Minster's statement on the independence of the Forum. However, he did not address the relationship between the Civic Forum and any independent consultative forum that may be appointed by a North/South Ministerial Council. The motion and the amendment of Mr Ford and Ms Morrice uphold the independence of the Forum to offer its views on such matters as it chooses and on such matters as the Assembly chooses. The motion clearly defines and expands the role of the Civic Forum from its original narrow remit within the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to give it a more complementary and progressive relationship with the entire Assembly. I am sure that the Assembly will benefit from that.

Of course, this does not square with the DUP's assertion that the Civic Forum is a second chamber. Indeed, if the DUP had discharged its obligations under the Good Friday Agreement and involved itself in the working parties set up by the Assembly to determine the role and remit of the Civic Forum, it would know that it is not a second chamber - that that was never on the agenda. Given the DUP's involvement here, I think that one Chamber is enough.

One of the tasks of the working party was to examine the role, remit, composition and relationship between the Civic Forum and the Assembly. Sinn Féin's proposals at that time, contained in our report to the Assembly, supported the Good Friday Agreement by stating that a consultative Civic Forum should not be limited to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister or it would become nothing more than a performing poodle. We agreed that, within the new dispensation of the agreement, the Forum should have the potential and the freedom to develop its own work programme, and the second part of the motion makes provision for that. It should also be able to set its own tasks, make its own reports and act as a bridge between the grass-roots communities and the Assembly, or "between people and politicians", as Mr Ervine eloquently put it.

We argued that this would not happen if the Civic Forum were constrained in any way. I welcome the comments by the First Minister on the independence of the Forum and the fact that a review of these arrangements will be carried out if this independence is not upheld. It is important that the Assembly establish the parameters in which the Civic Forum shall interrelate with Ministers and Members. If the Assembly, by motion, requests the Civic Forum to offer its views on specific social, economic and cultural matters, that will be a step towards addressing the democratic deficit which has given us 50 years of Unionist misrule and 30 years of fly-by-wire British Ministers and their quangos. To Dr Ian Paisley's comments about lack of representation, I respond "Your party did not participate."

I support the motion.

I would like to explain why Mr Ford and I proposed this amendment. Mr Ford has explained it in great detail; I want to stress again that the intention behind the amendment is to ensure the independence of the Civic Forum. I am very pleased to hear Mr Ervine, Mrs Nelis, Mr Maskey and others mentioning the importance, in principle, of the independence of the Civic Forum.

We must make sure that this independence is never compromised. In spite of what has been said on the Floor this morning, the value of the Civic Forum lies in its power to put forward a non-party political position. As such, that opinion is and should be hugely valued by the Assembly, in spite of what Members of the DUP will say.

We have said that the Civic Forum will act as a support for the work of the Assembly, its Committees and the Executive. This is a positive thing. The Forum will provide hands-on or grass-roots expertise and experience of many different sectors. It will be an effective and expert support service for the Assembly on the development of legislation, administration and policy.

Many contributors have said that this body adds value. That is exactly what I believe it does. As Members know very well, the Women's Coalition pushed to get the Civic Forum created by having it included in the Good Friday Agreement. It is important; it is value-added; and it offers new thinking and alternative options.

When the Member uses the word "pushed", she indicates that there was some resistance. Who was resisting the formation of the Civic Forum?

The use of the word "pushed" is to show how enthusiastic the Women's Coalition was to get this important issue through.

The Civic Forum should be about problem-solving and alternative thinking - I again refer to this corner - and, boy, do we need alternative thinking in Northern Ireland.

I want to refer quickly to some of the points made during this debate, starting with those made by the First Minister. I would like to quote him on his assurances that he and his Office are prepared to give independence to the Civic Forum. He said that it would be difficult to think that they would ever want to refuse to hear the views of the Civic Forum, and that means, when you turn it round, that the Forum can express its opinions on virtually whatever its members want. They have the freedom to set their agenda, and that is vital. We cannot restrict them - a point that we want to push with this amendment.

It was very enlightening of Ms Hanna to introduce the issues of Third-World development and international relations to the Floor of the House. This sort of issue is vital, and it would be worthwhile to explore whether it is possible for the Civic Forum to look at these matters, although they are reserved. I say "Why not?"

Dr Ian Paisley suggested that we talk about international matters and raised the matters of the European Parliament. He referred to the fact that the European Parliament roams around the world. I assume he was implying that roaming amounts to a waste of time. I must ask the good doctor why on earth he stands for election to the European Parliament every time one is called if he thinks that it is wasting its time roaming around the world. Why on earth does he then roam around between the seats of two Parliaments?

The European Parliament is convened on Thursdays. Members discuss all these issues, and they roam around the world. I do not roam around the world with them.

I thank the Member for giving us that assurance. The European Parliament may not roam the world, but my understanding is that it moves from place to place and that Members move with it.

Mr Maskey and Mrs Nelis said that they were satisfied with the assurances they received from the Executive. As non-Executive Members, we need those assurances on the Floor of the House and on the record.

Mr Ervine, with his references to limbo dancing, gave a colourful presentation. He and Ms McWilliams spoke about the insulting way in which members of the Civic Forum were referred to as "cronies". It is totally inappropriate to describe the people who give their time and energy to the Civic Forum in this way. Mr Ervine also spoke about the real ability of the Civic Forum to work hard for the good of this society.

As Ms McWilliams said, there is a need for greater liaison between the Assembly and the Civic Forum. I understand that the junior Minister will be winding up. I would appreciate his taking up this point. Undoubtedly, there is little interaction.

Mr Poots asked what the Forum had done. It is hard to know exactly what the Forum is doing because there is no cross-fertilisation between the Civic Forum and the Assembly. Mr Poots is not in the Chamber, but I would like to assure him that the Forum is doing things. Later this month it will launch its response to the Programme for Government. It is not the kind of support that the DUP spoke about for the Executive, but the Forum will cast a critical eye over the document, and its response will be valued.

An issue has been raised that goes to the very heart of the privilege of this House. Today we are debating the mechanisms by which the Civic Forum should be asked to offer its views to the Assembly. But here we have a Member telling us that the Civic Forum has already decided not only on how it will operate but also on a topic that it intends to give its views on - namely, the Programme for Government. That is a breach of the privilege of this House.

I will look into the issue and come back to you, Mr Robinson.

I would like to remind Mr Robinson that the whole community was asked to comment on the Programme for Government. What is very important is the need for some formalised contact between the Assembly and the Civic Forum.

More interaction is needed, not only in the Executive but also on the Floor of the Assembly and in Committees. Mr Poots talked about the need to give the Assembly more authority. I agree with that aspect of Mr Robinson's amendment. We are not just trying to give the Assembly more authority; we are trying to share that authority among the Executive, the Assembly and the Committees and to allow the Civic Forum to use its initiative. Its right to give opinions on matters it believes are of importance is necessary in order to underline its independence within its remit of the social, cultural and economic issues set out in the Good Friday Agreement.

I will conclude by saying once again that, from what we have heard, the First Minister did attempt to give us the assurances we are looking for. We would be grateful if those assurances could be underlined in the winding-up, because that is what the amendment is about. A warning was given about the First Minister's saying that the Civic Forum has the freedom to set its agenda. I think the point he made was that it has the freedom to set its agenda, subject to resources. I would be grateful for an explanation of exactly what that means. So far we are concerned, it is important that the Civic Forum has the freedom to set its agenda, and we would like to have that clarified. We are looking forward to hearing what the junior Minister has to say.

This debate has raised some interesting and important matters which were not obvious at the beginning of proceedings. Two in particular need to be dealt with by those winding up on behalf of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

The first relates to a claim made by the First Minister that the motion was what the Forum wanted. He repeated that claim on several occasions during the debate. Indeed, when an SDLP Back-Bencher took it up, my party leader asked, in an intervention, how such a claim could be made as the Civic Forum had never voted on or discussed this matter. There were remarks - if they could be called that - or gestures from a sedentary position by the First Minister, which indicated that what my Colleague had said was quite inaccurate. This was followed up by an intervention from the First Minister when my Colleague spoke. The First Minister said his claim was inaccurate, that the Civic Forum had met on the issue and, not only that, he was able to give us the date - 20 December 2000 - as the record will show.

This information is inaccurate. The First Minister has misled this House, and he should be brought to the Assembly to apologise. The Civic Forum did not meet on 20 December 2000. Indeed, there have been only two meetings of the Civic Forum in plenary session. The first was in October in the Waterfront Hall, and some Assembly Members went along to see the occasion. The second was held in Cookstown, around 6 December. The motion the First Minister was waving, saying it had the approval of the Civic Forum, was never brought before that meeting. A motion was brought to that meeting for information only, but it was not discussed or voted on.

Peculiarly enough, it was the motion that the First Minister denied any responsibility for during his speech. It was the motion I referred to in my earlier comments - the one that was brought to the Business Committee, the one the First Minister said he had not approved. However, somebody in his office sent it to the Business Office and indicated that this was for the business for the following week. It was later withdrawn. Not only was it sent to the Business Office for inclusion on the Order Paper of the House; it was also sent to the Civic Forum. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind about that - I have the Civic Forum agenda. It has that initial motion on it, the one the First Minister said did not get his approval or, I assume, the approval of the Deputy First Minister either.

We now know that this was a motion approved of by the First Minister. It would never have been sent to the Civic Forum or the Business Office had it not got that approval. It is obvious that he wants to disown it now - for what reasons, I am sure we will discover later. The critical issue is that neither the earlier motion nor the later motion was ever brought for the approval of, or discussion by, the Civic Forum at any of its meetings.

The First Minister may have had a word in the ear of the chairperson he appointed, but the matter was certainly not subject to the approval of the Civic Forum. When he comes to this Assembly and claims that the blessing of the Civic Forum is upon his motion, he is being untrue. The Forum has never approved of the motion that he put before the Assembly today.

Even if the Civic Forum had approved it, what difference would that have made? Does the First Minister believe that because the Civic Forum says "This is how we want to deal with our business" we have to jump to accept this decision? Does he believe that, in some way, it is calling the shots? Who is running the Civic Forum? Are they running the Assembly, or is the Assembly running them? According to the First Minister, if the Civic Forum wants it, the Assembly should give it. Of course, nothing should be further from the truth.

These problems arise, I suspect, because Members do not know what the Civic Forum is doing. How could they? They should go along to the Library of the House of Commons and see how it is spending hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money, yet does not have even a minute of any meeting of the Civic Forum.

What was the purpose of the Civic Forum? To give its views to the Assembly. Yet we cannot even find out when it met, where it met and what it did when it met. This is a body whose single charge is to provide its views to this Assembly.

Will the Member agree that it would, therefore, be very valuable to set up a formal procedural mechanism whereby there could be co-operation and an exchange of information between the Assembly and the Civic Forum?

The Member heard my comments and views on what would be appropriate for the Civic Forum. While it is in existence, it needs to be controlled and ordered. Certainly, the mechanisms that are presently in place are quite inadequate. A body such as the Civic Forum is a complete waste of time. When one looks at the plethora of bodies and organisations in Northern Ireland that deal with Government matters one wonders how anybody in his right mind could have produced such a body.

We have representatives from Northern Ireland in the European Parliament. We have representatives, from this House and outside in Northern Ireland, in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. We have this Assembly. We have 26 local councils, 11 Government Departments, Statutory Committees and Standing Committees - probably over 20, perhaps 30, Assembly Committees of one variety or another. We have the British-Irish Council, the North/South Ministerial Council, a range of implementation bodies, sectoral meetings and a vast range of quangos. And on top of that, they want a Civic Forum. It just seems that we are a trifle over-governed - aside from the issue of the body's size and the waste of expenditure it involves.

I see my Friend wants to say something on this matter.

Does the hon Member think that there is a grave danger of Northern Ireland ending up with many more chiefs than Indians and that, soon, the membership of these august bodies will outnumber the electorate?

Some people out there will be quite offended if they are not given a position on one of these bodies. They will probably be able to go to the Human Rights Commission and claim that they have been discriminated against because they are not on one of the quangos that have been set up.

That was the first serious matter that was raised, and to which I referred. The First Minister needs to apologise to the Assembly for misleading the House by indicating that he had the Civic Forum's approval of his motion, when clearly that was not the case.

The second serious matter arose in the speech of the Member for North Down, Ms Morrice. I do not know if the claim made by the Member is accurate. However, I raised a point of order at the time, because if it is accurate, it represents a serious breach of privilege. The hon Member's claim was that the Civic Forum was going full steam ahead to provide its views on the Programme for Government to the Assembly. That is interesting, because today the Assembly is deciding the mechanism by which the Civic Forum will be asked to provide its views. Therefore, according to the hon Member for North Down, the Civic Forum has decided that it is going to do its own thing in advance of any decision being taken by the Assembly. It has decided what it is going to look at and give its views on. That is a serious breach of privilege. It is already taking on a life of its own.

A second serious matter arises from that. When I raised the point of order, the Member, in an attempt to excuse herself or the Civic Forum, said that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister had asked the whole of society for its views on the Programme for Government. That is not, of course, the case. They asked the whole of society for its view on the draft Programme for Government, and that is a critical difference, because this Assembly - wrongly, in my view - decided to approve the Programme for Government. Therefore, according to the Member for North Down, a body which was set up to give its views to the Assembly is now second-guessing the Assembly and judging whether the Assembly has done its job properly or not. That is not the business of the Civic Forum. That matter must be clarified in order to determine whether or not the information provided by the Member to the House was correct.

Both matters - that raised by the Member for North Down and the First Minister's inaccuracies - go to the heart of the lack of available information on what this body is doing. This is a clear indication that it is not fulfilling the one charge made to it, which was to provide its views.

I want to deal with another matter, and I am glad to see Dr Birnie in his place. Dr Birnie thought that he would provide us with some of his wisdom. In an intervention, the Member asked my Colleague Dr Paisley why he had not put down an amendment which would have allowed members of the Orange Institution to be represented on the Civic Forum. Either the Member was trying to be mischievous or he was acting in ignorance - perhaps both. Of course, there was no need to put down an amendment. The range of bodies produced in the report made allowance for Orange Order representatives to be included, because cultural interests were to be catered for -

What was the problem then?

The Member will find out very quickly what my problem is.

There was no prohibition on the appointments that the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister could make. There would have been no difficulty if they had wanted to include an official representative from the Orange Institution. When the statement was eventually made, no one in the House could procedurally amend it. We have no right to decide who the members of the Civic Forum are. Only the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have that right. The Assembly's role is to approve or disapprove. We disapproved. We voted against it, and after the event we did the right thing and put down a motion in the Assembly which criticised the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister for excluding a significant section of Northern Ireland's community.

The next comment came from a Sinn Féin/IRA representative, who seemed to think that I was not entitled to make any comment on what the intention was - either in the legislation or in the agreement - as far as the workings of the Civic Forum were concerned. I contend that I am so entitled, unless of course he is saying that the agreement sought to hide the intention behind the Civic Forum. If the agreement did not seek to hide the intention behind the Forum, then I am entitled to read the agreement and work out what the intention was. If there was no subterfuge in the intention, I am entitled to read the agreement and work out its signatories' intention with regard to the Civic Forum. I must say that my record of working out the intentions of those who signed the Belfast Agreement is far better than the First Minister's - as the courts have recently demonstrated.

Arising from that, the Sinn Féin/IRA representative concluded that because the Alliance Party and its close Colleagues in the Women's Coalition had put down an amendment to include the Committees as the bodies that could give work to the Civic Forum, it was nonsense. Why was it nonsense? He said it was because the Committees had the right to get the views of individuals and groups and, therefore, the Forum was unnecessary. That goes to the heart of my argument. This Assembly has the right to get the views of anybody in civic society on any matter. And whether it has the right to or not, civic society is giving its views on all of these matters daily.

The Sinn Féin/IRA representative said that if it is coming to you, and you have the right to get it and hear it, and then all the rest is unnecessary. He is underlining the fact that the body is unnecessary because provisions are already in place for hearing the views of civic society. This is an unnecessary and costly duplication.

The next comment came from the PUP representative who read us a homily, which is not unusual. I was annoyed with him because I asked to intervene in his speech, and he refused at that point saying that he would let me intervene later, but then he sat down without doing so. I understand why he did that - his argument could not stand up. His argument was that the DUP by its amendment was showing that it had more trust in the hated First Minister and Deputy First Minister than in the Civic Forum. If he had read the amendment he would have seen that the "hated First Minister and Deputy First Minister" were being made subject to the will of the Assembly. They were being hauled back from their original motion.

The amendment was significantly different from the original motion. The original motion allowed the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to take these matters forward on their own volition. The amendment requires them to have the approval of the Assembly, in exactly the same way as the Civic Forum was required to have the approval of the Assembly if there were matters that it felt were proper to have discussed. So, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister were being dealt with in precisely the same way, and, because neither of them was trusted, it was subject to the will of the Assembly itself.

That would have been the reply had the Member for East Belfast had the grace and manners to give way to me when I sought him to do so. I do not know if his tongue was embedded firmly in his cheek when he spoke, but he suggested that there were people in this House who would see the Civic Forum as a threat. That comment caused some hilarity on this side of the House. I cannot see too many of my Colleagues shaking in their shoes at the prospect of Gary McMichael coming out of his forced retirement to take them on at the polls - or because of any other of the individuals that are there.

I will deal with his general view. He said that these are people who can make a speech without having it typed up for them, and who can do joined-up writing. Therefore, he thinks that we should get their views and that they cannot be considered to be cronies. One can have a well-educated crony. The ability to do joined-up writing does not stop people being cronies. Making speeches without having to refer to prepared manuscripts does not stop them from being cronies. None of those things are essential to someone being a crony.

The Member's next comment concerned the anti-agreement Unionists' position. He said that by being in the Assembly they were in some way supporting the existence of the Assembly and did not want to bring it down. Let me deal with that matter, because it seems to be of an organised type by a number of individuals, which will probably be their only defence in the run-up to an election.

In any democratic society, if one wants to democratically defeat a proposition that one finds to be anathema, there are options available. In this case the DUP considers that there are three. One option is to get the Ulster Unionist Council to live up to its manifesto commitments and ditch the deal. That is never going to happen. It is not going to happen because, at the height of the question, the Ulster Unionist Council did not take the opportunity to stop armed terrorist representatives from being in the Government. The Ulster Unionist Council voted in favour of letting them into the Government without decommissioning taking place.

The second available option is to get 60% of Unionists in the Assembly to veto the process. If that were done, the DUP would have succeeded in doing what Mr Ervine did not want it to do. The DUP tabled a motion that could have united Unionism more than anything else. The motion proposed to exclude those who were still engaged in acts of terrorism from being in government. Those people are still running guns into the country from Florida and, only a week ago, were caught in possession of loaded weapons in Cork in the Republic of Ireland. However, when the DUP brought the motion before the House, 55% of Unionists - a clear majority of Unionists in the Assembly - voted for their exclusion, but not the 60% that was required.

That leaves only the electoral annihilation option - the defeat of the First Minister and his team at the polls and the democratic defeat of the Belfast Agreement. That is the option that the DUP is choosing.

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will the Member explain what relevance this has to the motion?

I was also having difficulty relating it to the motion. Mr Robinson, you are straying from the motion.

This is interesting. It is a remarkable intervention. Why was it not made when the allegation was made by her Friend Mr Ervine? It seems that it is in order to have the remarks made by Mr Ervine, but it is out of order if I try to reply to them. People will read for themselves the level of consistency in that approach.

I am not sure why Monica McWilliams, the leader of the Women's Coalition, spoke. Perhaps it was to draw attention to the parentage of the Civic Forum and to take what she might consider to be credit for its existence. However, her Colleague's remarks show that there was no all-party desire within the negotiations for the Belfast Agreement to have a Civic Forum. In fact, I heard one Ulster Unionist describe the inclusion of the Civic Forum as something "to keep Monica quiet". On that basis, this extra tier of "government" exists only to please one of the negotiating parties to the Belfast Agreement, who did not seem to get anything else that she asked for during the process. Her contribution today was an attempt to take some ownership for it.

Does my hon Friend agree that the Forum is made up of people who wanted a place but who could not get directly elected?

It is very clear, particularly in the appointment of the UDP representative, that that is the case. There are many groups and organisations represented in the Civic Forum whose views I am sure Assembly Members will be happy to hear. Those views can be heard at any time, any day of the week. There is nothing to stop any representative from the churches, trade unions or business organisations from coming to see Assembly Members, and they do so. In spite of the Civic Forum's existence, the bodies and groups represented on the Civic Forum still come to Assembly Members and give their opinions on matters that are before the House or on those that they wish to have brought before the House. It is duplication and an unnecessary and costly element to our society.

In conclusion, I commend the amendment to the House. Nothing said during the debate will take away from the amendment's validity. At its very heart, it requires the Assembly to determine the business that the Civic Forum will consider, and its priorities, rather than have the Forum pressurised into dealing with various issues thrown at it from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, the Assembly, its Committees and the Civic Forum itself. It is nonsense to do business in that way. The business should be under the control of the Assembly, the body whose views it should take into account and not question in the way that the Member for North Down suggests. The Civic Forum should provide its views solely to the Assembly on matters that the Assembly seeks to have its views on.

The Junior Minister (Office of the First and the Deputy First Minister) (Mr Haughey): Mr Deputy Speaker, I note that Mr Robinson spoke for 25 minutes. I trust that you will give me the same latitude.

I would like to thank the Assembly Members for their contributions to the debate - and I mean that most sincerely, as Hughie Green used to say. Even DUP Members have contributed significantly to the general mirth of the nation.

The Civic Forum is one of the key elements of the Good Friday Agreement. Therefore, it is very important that it be given a credible role to play in the process that we are engaged in. That role is one of providing independent views from a broad range of sectors in our society. It has become evident during today's debate that some Members have sincere reservations about the motion tabled by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. I want to clarify the situation and give an absolute assurance to those Members.

The First Minister made it clear in his statement this morning that arrangements for the review of the Civic Forum will be completed within the year - by 21 October. That is the assurance that some Members sought. All concerns and representations will be taken into account at that stage. I will quote from the First Minister's statement to allay the other fears over the independence of the Civic Forum and its freedom to pursue its own agenda:

The First Minister went on to say:

He continued

Resourcing was raised on several occasions. The suggestion was made that the Civic Forum would be limited by its resources - that is to say that it would be given a certain allowance and forced to live according to its wits on the basis of the allowance made to it. That is neither the point nor the position. The following is the wish of the Civic Forum, as well as of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. If they, following discussion and consensus, agree on a set of priorities - according to the wishes of the Forum and according to the priorities as seen by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister - that will then set the agenda for finding the resources necessary to accommodate that agenda.

That is quite a different picture from the one painted by some Members this morning.

The First Minister said this morning that the chairperson of the Civic Forum had been assured that the Assembly would not stifle the work of the Forum. He accepts that, and the Civic Forum has approved these arrangements, which we believe will be beneficial to all parties. Let me quote further, just in case there is any doubt about the position. The First Minister also said - [Interruption].

Nonsense. Will the Member give way?

Order.

Is it customary for a Minister - [Interruption].

I do not think that it is customary during the winding-up speech. Please continue.

It is absolutely customary.

I am no expert on parliamentary procedure, but I thought that when a Minister was winding up a debate - [Interruption].

Let him have his say; it will add to the mirth of the nation.

I do not know whether the Member was listening when I made my remarks. I made it very clear that the First Minister had been inaccurate. The Civic Forum has never seen this motion. The Civic Forum has never voted on or discussed this motion. The Junior Minister is repeating the inaccuracies of the First Minister. Would he not like to reconsider his position?

I would not like to reconsider my position at all. I will get round to that issue in a moment.

I return to quoting what the First Minister said this morning:

I hope that those words, taken from the First Minister's statement this morning and repeated now by me to this House, will allay the anxieties of those who have genuine concerns here and who are not out to play a party game for party advantage.

It is sad, deplorable and very regrettable to see the intelluctual decline of a hitherto fine body of men, and a woman - the DUP. It is sad indeed to see the decline of the intelluctual powers of Mr Peter Robinson - a man who was renowned for the rigour of his analysis and the vigour of his mind. Out of respect to his friends and family, who must be distressed at his present state, I will devote my time only to a number of the most obvious of the absurdities that he came out with this morning.

First, he said that the Civic Forum would be a complete waste of time and money and that there was ample opportunity for all groups in society to make their views known to the Assembly and its Members. He then went on to argue that the Orange Order had been deliberately excluded from the Civic Forum and that it ought to be included. He went on to mention other Loyal Institutions. I am no expert on the other Loyal Institutions, but I understand that they include the Apprentice Boys of Derry, the Royal Arch Purple, the Independent Orange Order and a number of other bodies. If all of these other bodies were to be included in the Civic Forum, and Dr Paisley -[Interruption].

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I am not giving way any more.

It is a point of order, Mr Haughey. You are requested to give way.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>