Committee on the
Preparation for Government

Tuesday 20 June 2006

Members in attendance for all or part of proceedings:
The Chairman, Mr Francie Molloy
Mr Billy Armstrong
Mr John Dallat
Mrs Diane Dodds
Dr Seán Farren
Mr David Ford
Ms Michelle Gildernew
Mrs Naomi Long
Mr David McClarty
Dr William McCrea
Mr Alan McFarland
Mr Patsy McGlone
Mr Martin McGuinness
Mr David McNarry
Mr Maurice Morrow
Mr Conor Murphy
Mr John O’Dowd
Ms Margaret Ritchie

Observing: Mr Jim Wells

The Committee met at 10.04 am.

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

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Welcome to the meeting. Could everyone switch off their mobile phones, which may interfere with the Hansard recording?

Apologies were received from Michael McGimpsey, who is replaced by David McClarty; from Alasdair McDonnell, who is replaced by Patsy McGlone; and from Ian Paisley Jnr, who is replaced by Diane Dodds.

Members have the draft minutes of yesterday’s meeting, 19 June. I wish to draw attention to the letter sent to the Clerk to the Assembly. We are awaiting a response in relation to the minutes of Friday’s meeting, 16 June.

There is a typo at point 5, which should read: “10 am to 12.30 pm”, not “2.30 pm”.

Are there any other points? Can we agree the minutes?

Members have had time to read the minutes. Are there any points to raise?

Mr McFarland: Does the typo refer to “12.30 pm”?

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Absolutely. Are there any other issues? Can we approve the minutes? Are we agreed?

Mr Morrow: I wish to raise a point about the minutes. It seems to be important that we record everybody’s coming in and going out, but does that mean that everything stood still between their coming in and going out, because nothing seems to have happened? Why is it so important that we record everybody’s going in and out, but we do not record what happened as they went in and out?

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Convention works along the lines of who is in the room at the time of interruption. The Clerks take note only of points that had been noted or decisions made within that time. Under the new arrangements for taking minutes, that will vary.

Mr Morrow: The minutes state that Dr McDonnell left at 4 pm and came back at 4.06 pm; that he left at 4.08 pm and came back at 4.15 pm; and that he left at 4.31 pm and came back. Someone reading those minutes would assume that nothing happened while all that was going on.

Mr McFarland: Maurice is right. There is no correlation between Members leaving and the conversations. However, that is now solved because Hansard is here and will be recording minutes all the way through. The time Members leave the meeting will go into Hansard so the problem is now solved. However, it can cause confusion.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): It is the same with council minutes. They record whether people are in or out of the room, and issues may arise after members have left.

Mr Morrow: Yes, that is right. However, they also record what went on between the leaving and returning.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Yes. I will not say that nothing went on, but the conversation was regular within that period, and the rest of the minutes probably reveal that. However, as we deal with new issues, we will have different situations. Hansard is recording now so we will have a record of this meeting.

Is everyone happy?

Mrs D Dodds: Mr Deputy Speaker, I have one item. Do we have any indication when there will be something back from the Clerk to the Assembly?

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The Clerk is working on that at the moment and will reply. However, there is no indication at this stage of when a reply will come back.

Mrs D Dodds: We asked yesterday for that to come back in time for this afternoon’s meeting. Will that be possible?

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Again, the Clerk will respond when a decision has been made. We have asked for that, but there has been no decision, as yet, on that.

Can we move on to the presentations from the parties? As agreed yesterday, that will be in alphabetical order, so the Alliance Party will be first.

Mr Ford: Thank you, Chairman. I want to make it clear at the outset that the Alliance Party wants to see a fully functioning Executive and Assembly working in this Building by 24 November, but we also believe that it is important that we do not seek to merely organise a quick fix over the coming months. We must address a number of fundamental weaknesses that exist within the operation of the agreement and which have been identified at different times since 1998, and ensure that whatever we put in place this autumn does not break down again easily. I think that the people of Northern Ireland would not forgive us if that were to happen.

The Alliance Party fully supports the principles of the agreement: we were a party to it, but that does not mean that we support every detail of the way it operated in its first guise.

One of the key issues for many people relates to the rule of law. We welcome the fact that recent reports by the Independent Monitoring Commission (IMC) have shown significant, though not complete, progress by republicans on the move towards normal, democratic politics. We look forward to seeing a further positive report from the IMC in October which — if it is as optimistic as people hope — will alter the political landscape significantly. However, at this stage, we have not yet resolved many issues relating to the rule of law. It is also a simple matter of fact that those issues affect more than one party — indeed, in current circumstances, they affect more than one party that has the potential to be part of an Executive. That is why Alliance believes that among the important matters to be dealt with is the strengthening of the ministerial pledge of office to include the matters that are generally referred to as “paragraph 13 of the Joint Declaration by the British and Irish Governments” — that which defines the unacceptable behaviour in much stronger terms than has traditionally been the case.

Aligned to the rule of law, another issue which must be dealt with is policing. It seems that that will be one of the contentious and difficult issues that we have to deal with. The Alliance Party believes that it is absolutely essential that any party participating in Government — whether a national Government or a devolved Government — must fully show that it supports the policing structures, the established police service and all other aspects of the rule of law. That will be a cause for future negotiations, but we simply record that as our opinion at this stage.

We welcome the proposal for the devolution of policing and justice powers to the Assembly, but note that there are major issues around the timing of that devolution, the powers to be devolved and the structures and accountability under which devolution will occur.

Subsequent to the publication of our detailed paper ‘Agenda for Democracy’, the recent statement in Westminster has made it clear that the triple lock, which we support, is now in place. Therefore, before there can be devolution of policing and justice powers, there must be a cross-community vote in the Assembly, an appropriate declaration from the Secretary of State, and then an affirmative resolution in Parliament. It seems that that is now relatively straightforward.

Similarly, there is probably an emerging consensus on the precise powers, but I do not wish to go into those at this stage. However, a major concern for us is the issue of the structures in which this power would be devolved. We do not believe that any of the four models proposed by the Government to date would deal with such a sensitive issue as justice in any meaningful way. There cannot be a position where a single party is given untrammelled power over justice matters; nor can two parties each take a bit of it; and neither can two parties be somehow forced to share it without any current model for dealing with the reconciliation of differences — as was shown by the difficulties in the operation of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) during the first Assembly, which also remain to be resolved.

We believe that the only way in which justice and policing can be properly devolved is by having a single Department of Justice in an Executive with a full degree of collective responsibility, which would involve all the parties in the Executive reaching consensus over the operation of those powers. That would also mean that there was the potential for the removal of a Minister in the event of difficulties. The existing structures do not allow for that, and they have major problems within them.

10.15 am

We have also highlighted our concerns about the issue of ‘A Shared Future’. This policy was initiated under the devolved Executive, although the publication of the significant document only occurred under direct rule, but it is now a major article of faith for this Government and, we believe, should also be so for any devolved Executive.

It is absolutely imperative, on both financial and moral grounds, that we end the notion that this society can be run as two supposedly separate, but equal, fiefdoms on issues such as education or the provision of health centres or housing. That idea is unsustainable in every sense of the word, and it is vital that all those who wish to participate in a future Executive should give a commitment to implementing the policy contained in ‘A Shared Future’.

Another issue that has generated a lot of discussion in the past is the issue of victims and of how we handle matters such as truth and reconciliation. Probably one of the major failings of the agreement in 1998 was that it did not deal satisfactorily with those issues. As time has gone on, it has become almost impossible to subsequently address them properly. At this stage, there is limited time for progress and that progress is likely to be limited. However, at the very least, we should have something such as a victims’ forum, which would allow people to put their stories on the record. It is probably unrealistic to recommend anything beyond that — I do not know how we would approach it.

One of the key difficulties that Alliance has in the operation of what I would regard to be the agreement mark I, and which is covered in our paper, relates to institutional issues. During the workings of the first Assembly, it was established clearly that there were many problems with the way in which the institutions had been set up. The fact that much of it had been cobbled together in the final 48 hours has been shown by the way that problems have arisen recently.

The first point that we wish to highlight will not surprise those of you who have heard us say it over the years: the issue of designations and the associated voting system. Designations entrench division; they do nothing to overcome division. They ensure that there is no equality of votes for MLAs. Those Members who were in the Assembly on 2 and 6 November 2001 will be well aware of the differences in the voting for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister that were caused by playing around with the designation system. In particular, the designation system is too rigid to take account of changing demography, and designations allow the process to be held hostage by narrow minorities, which, because of the way in which the system operates, may constitute a blocking minority.

Given what happened in 2001, and what happened with the issue of whether the former Deputy First Minister did or did not resign and how that was dealt with, we must get away from the problems created by designation. In accordance with normal democratic procedures, the only way to do that is to cast votes in the Assembly on the basis of a straightforward weighted majority, free from designations, meaning that the two thirds or 65% or 75% or whatever needed for a weighted majority could come from any Member and, as would undoubtedly happen at different times, could come from different coalitions of Members. Anything other than that approach would continue to entrench the divisions that the Assembly is supposed to overcome and would continue to ensure that there is no equality for MLAs, especially — and specifically at this stage — for the seven who signed the Roll for the current Assembly without designating themselves as either unionist or nationalist.

Related to the issue of designations is the formation of the Executive. There were real problems with the workings of the first Executive. There was no collectivity, and it appeared that there was no shared understanding between Ministers over most policies. Even matters such as the Programme for Government appeared to operate at a lowest-common-denominator level. Certainly, it appeared to me, as someone who sat on the Opposition Benches, to be largely ignored in implementation once it was agreed. Effectively, power was divided, not shared, and we do not believe that that is a recipe for moving forward.

There was actually no incentive for Ministers to co-operate. There was more incentive to grandstand and oppose each other. The numbers of people involved in the Executive parties led to a lack of clear understanding between Opposition and Government; the spectacle of Back-Bench Members of parties in Government voting against the policies of other Government parties; of Ministers coming into the Chamber to sit on their hands while their ministerial colleagues voted one way and their party colleagues voted another way. It was not a recipe for good government.

We believe that the only way in which good government could actually operate to a meaningful programme of government is on the basis of a voluntary coalition and a suitable weighted majority. Nobody suggests that in a society like this you can govern on the basis of 50% plus one being adequate to carry contentious legislation, but to endorse an Executive and to endorse its contentious legislation by that same level of weighted majority at around the two-thirds mark gives an opportunity for some coherence, which has been sadly lacking so far.

Those proposals are not seeking to exclude any party from government but to provide better government. They provide the opportunity for all parties to engage in post-election negotiations around a programme of government that could then be implemented by an Executive that could command the appropriate level of support in the Assembly. It is actually the way in which Governments are formed nearly all the time now in Dublin, and on both occasions in Edinburgh. It is a much more open and transparent way of operating than the way we have seen.

Fundamentally we do not believe that inclusion in the process of governance necessarily means that all parties of a particular size have a right by a particular mathematical formula to inclusion in the Government at every point in time. There has to be the opportunity for change; there has to be the opportunity for some parties to grow, and other parties to decrease, in influence and to move in.

There are fundamental issues related to the Executive’s operation that may or may not be addressed, but one thing that does have to be introduced is better accountability. We have highlighted the fact that at the moment there is no collectivity, but we could strengthen the ministerial code of conduct. It seems to be generally accepted that we should be looking for a statutory code, which would ensure that there was at least a greater obligation on Ministers to co-operate.

We believe that when Ministers have the power to take decisions, in large measure on their own say-so without recourse to the Assembly, there needs to be a potential power of recall within the Assembly. We see that as solely a power to reverse a ministerial decision if an appropriate weighted majority, or cross-community majority in current terminology, passed a measure to do so. This is not an opportunity to trip up every Minister on every occasion. It is simply that, where there are particular major issues on which a Minister clearly does not have the support of the House, it should be possible to reverse the decision.

We also believe it is essential that any Executive, when it is established, should be the subject of a vote to endorse, collectively, in the Assembly. That is the pattern that applies in, for example, Switzerland, which is probably the closest example we have to the way our Assembly would work. We believe that it is vital that any party that participates in the Executive should be prepared to show its confidence in the Executive as a whole. If parties are not willing to show their confidence in the Executive as a whole, it raises serious questions as to whether they really wish to be part of it in any meaningful sense.

Finally, just a quick point on the mathematics of the issue. If nothing else, the shenanigans since November 2003 in regard to the potential allocation of 10 seats in any Executive or other body by the d’Hondt formula — with people changing party resulting in other entirely unrelated parties eventually gaining or losing seats — shows how poor the d’Hondt formula is in reflecting proportionality when dealing with a small number of places from a small electorate. Only replacing d’Hondt by greater use of the single transferable vote within the Assembly will allow people who have broadly similar aims and objectives to come together in a way that d’Hondt does not allow to happen.

Those are the key points that I wish to make, and I think that I have actually managed to stick within the allocated time limit.

Mr McFarland: I suggest that colleagues ask questions on the fact of what has been said. It is just that if we start having a debate on that, we will end up having the same debate on each one, because there are common points. I suggest that we have factual questions on accuracy, or on what someone meant or whatever, and then perhaps have a debate on the whole discussion at the end.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are members content with that? I suppose that we want to try to be as flexible as possible too with the questions and the discussion.

Mr McFarland: If we have that whole debate now on all its aspects, we cannot have the debate again on each aspect, but we may have different things to say. So it makes some sense to leave the debate until we have heard everyone’s submissions and have a proper debate at that stage rather than having five mini debates.

Dr Farren: I want to go on to the substance of how we are going to proceed. I simply want to open questions for the SDLP.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are there any other procedural issues first of all?

Dr McCrea: No, it is probably best if parties agree to answer questions now, rather than leave it until the end. It will break continuity of thought and therefore it is best for questions to be posed now.

Dr Farren: To begin, I thank Mr Ford for his presentation. My question arises from something that will be a general issue throughout the day, which is how we structure questions on what the parties are presenting from here on in. My concern relates to what issues need to be addressed in order to pave the way for restoration.

Does Mr Ford distinguish between those issues that essentially relate to the problems that caused suspension in the first place and those issues, many of which he has mentioned, that arose in the course of the review of the operation of the Good Friday Agreement and on which it is desirable to make progress and indeed to reach agreement on them before restoration, but are not necessarily linked to restoration in itself, in the sense that they were not the problems that brought about suspension?

We need to address the essential issues. It may be desirable to address and resolve other issues, but they are not essential to restoration.

Mr Ford: I fundamentally take a different line from that which was in Dr Farren’s line of questioning, because suspension in October 2002 was not the only problem; there were also problems for the workings of this Assembly. Countless other problems arose on the way. I do not believe that the people of Northern Ireland would forgive us if we managed a quick fix that then fell apart again. As I remember, the election of a First Minister and Deputy First Minister in November 2001 was a fairly major crisis. It was resolved in four or five days but it was, nonetheless, a significant crisis, and it was only resolved by playing around with one aspect of the agreement which I have highlighted — the designation voting system. I again put on record my belief that the issue that caused a problem when implemented in good faith exactly as written in the agreement by all parties was the designation voting system.

10.30 am

If we do not deal with those issues, we run the risk of facing that crisis at some point. We cannot afford to not deal with all the outstanding issues, considering how long the Assembly has been suspended. I also think that it is not strictly correct to refer to the review of the agreement that was held, because, as far as I am concerned, that review consisted of one round-table meeting in the Long Gallery in early 2004, and we have not actually completed it. The review is essential to getting this Assembly and Executive functioning.

Dr Farren: Are you going to allow one party to continue for a few minutes? It would be helpful if you did that so that I do not lose my train of thought.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Yes.

Dr Farren: If you reflect on the question that I asked, I did not specify what might be regarded as the essential issue or issues that contributed to suspension. We need to focus on what is essential to restoration — without which restoration will not happen. Otherwise, we will become involved in a huge agenda of work across a wide spectrum of issues. Many of the other issues were being dealt with in the review and, while there might only have been one round-table meeting, there were lots of engagements with the Ministers. On several occasions, I met Paul Murphy and Ministers from the South to discuss matters to do with North/South relations and the North/South Ministerial Council, and so on.

Some of those issues are crucial, but we need to structure our business and avoid getting into a whole range of issues by focusing on the essential issues as opposed to the rest, however desirable and necessary it would be to resolve them in the long or the shorter term. If we can resolve many of them in the shorter term, so much the better.

I am also concerned, and you may care to comment, at the reference in your opening remarks to the Alliance Party’s contribution, which I acknowledge, to the negotiations leading to the Good Friday Agreement. At a later point, with a rather loose phrase, you referred to the “agreement mark I”, which implies, or may imply — I invite you to clarify — whether we are in an agreement mark II, in the sense of fundamentally moving away in some, or many, key respects from the agreement signed in April 1998.

Mr Ford: Regarding the first point as to what is essential and important at this stage, without going through my entire presentation, we regard nearly everything that I outlined as essential. They are key things that have either gone wrong in the past or have the potential to go wrong in the future. I made the point that we cannot have a simple quick fix that deals with one or two problems associated with getting the two current largest parties into Government; we must ensure that we do not run into the problems of the past.

I also remain to be convinced, based on past experience. Where problems have been highlighted and treated as important but not essential, they frequently never get addressed. That is why I am concerned with ensuring that some of the issues that we have highlighted as problems in the past are addressed.

On my use of the phraseology of the “agreement mark I”, I am certainly not here to negotiate a new agreement, but I am here on the basis that the agreement specifies that there is to be a full review of its operation. There has not been a review conference convened by the two Governments with all Assembly parties invited in any meaningful sense, and I have highlighted where the workings of the agreement have gone wrong and what needs to be addressed.

As far as I am concerned, the agreement mark II, which I hope to see, is an agreement within the context of the agreement as was signed — or not signed, as the case may be — in April 1998, but that acknowledges and deals with existing problems. If my terminology of mark I and mark II was unfortunate in that respect, it was intended to emphasise that we wish to make the improvements to the agreement that we believe are essential for it to provide stable and durable Government for the people of Northern Ireland.

Dr Farren: I have one more question. I accept and acknowledge your point that the review was incomplete. Can I therefore accept from what you say that the proposals within the so-called comprehensive agreement of December 2004 are not necessarily proposals with respect to the operation of the institutions that your party accepts, or may not fully accept?

Mr Ford: At the last meeting I had with the Government Minister, David Hanson mentioned the so-called comprehensive agreement. In the opinion of the Alliance Party, it was neither comprehensive as regards those involved in the discussions nor comprehensive as regards the issues covered, nor did it reach agreement even amongst those who were involved.

Dr Farren: I take it that we can come back to that later.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Yes. Do members of the Committee have any other questions?

Mr Murphy: Seán Farren mentioned many of the real issues that David Ford highlighted in relation to the operation of the institutions. David said that there had been one round-table meeting in the Long Gallery, but, as I recall, Des Browne and Tom Kitt chaired quite a few meetings in Stormont House at which the Alliance Party raised many of those issues. Although there was some discussion, the Alliance Party could not pursue all the issues successfully. It may regard the present meetings as an opportunity to revisit some of those issues.

I do not deny that issues around the working of the agreement are important and that we should get them right; however, I do not necessarily consider them to be vital to the restoration of the institutions. They can be worked on through various procedures committees and by examining areas such as the ministerial code.

David took issue with some of the models that are being floated in relation to the transfer of policing powers, but, unless I missed it, I did not hear the Alliance Party advocate a model of its own choice. David outlined his party’s support for the transfer of powers, but has his party a model or idea of what level of powers should be transferred and how they should be operated?

Mr Ford: Conor Murphy may recall many meetings during 2004: that is an indication of the party that he comes from. Some of the rest of us do not recall quite so many meetings with the two Governments. That is why I do not consider that we can remit some of these issues to a procedures committee — they are too important to be appropriately dealt with merely by a committee in the Assembly.

I trust that the record will show what I said about the transfer of policing powers. I disagreed with all four models that the Government put forward, and I outlined our view that justice and policing powers can be properly devolved only to a Department of Justice in an Executive that operates with collective responsibility. Collectivity is the only way that all parties in an Executive could have a meaningful say in the operation of a Department of Justice. I thought that I had highlighted some of the difficulties as well.

Mr Murphy: There were discussions between the Government and ourselves in 2004. However, I was referring to the round-table meetings that were chaired in Stormont House, at which, as I recall, all parties were present. At those meetings some of the issues that David Ford highlighted here were pursued to some degree, but they did not receive widespread support. Perhaps this is an opportunity for David to revisit them.

I understand the type of Executive to which the Alliance Party wants policing and justice powers to be transferred, but I am still not clear on what model it wants. Obviously, the party has a view on collective responsibility and enhanced accountability in an Executive, but what specific type of department of policing and justice does the party envisage in an Executive?

Mr Ford: I did not catch the last bit of the question.

Mr Murphy: You said that you disagree with the four models, but, as far as I can see, your point was in relation to how the Executive would operate its collective responsibility and accountability. I understand the points about the Executive, but I am not sure which model of justice department the party wants. Would it consider the same model as all the other Departments but simply with improved workings in the Executive, or a different model for policing and justice?

Mr Ford: Our point was that there should be a single Department of Justice operating on the basis of collective responsibility within the Executive and thereby enabling all Executive parties to take a collective view, which would be implemented by the Department. Given the history of the way in which individual Departments have operated up to now, we do not believe that they have been very successful in many areas. Dealing with justice matters is difficult, so it is essential that there be full collectivity as is the case with any other Government within these islands. We simply cannot operate unless that collectivity exists, but that would be on the basis of a single Department covering the full range of powers to be devolved — justice and policing both under a single Minister within the collective Executive.

Mr M McGuinness: Just to set the record straight, the reason there was such difficulty in getting an inclusive process of discussions through the course of 2004 was the very publicly stated opinion of the Democratic Unionist Party that it was going to negotiate with the British Government. At every stage of whatever meeting Sinn Féin was involved in during the course of that year with both the Irish and the British Governments, we made it clear that all of the parties should be involved. That was made very difficult by the stance adopted by the Democratic Unionist Party. It strikes me that it is one of the difficulties that we are facing at this Committee.

Again, at the outset of this Committee, it has been very clearly stated by the DUP that any negotiations that will take place will take place between themselves and the British Government, and that does present problems for ourselves, the Ulster Unionists, the Alliance Party and the SDLP. It is certainly not how Sinn Féin sees this process of dialogue continuing in a way that will be, hopefully, effective.

I want to ask one question: does the Alliance Party accept that the Executive and the North/South Ministerial Council should be established on or before 24 November this year?

10.45 am

Mr Ford: I think, Chairman, that the record will show that I stated that specifically at the beginning of my presentation.

Mr M McGuinness: OK. Thank you.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are there any other questions?

Mr Kennedy: Mr Ford, thank you for your presentation. I have one quick question on the issue of Executive formation and the reference to a voluntary coalition. While it might seem attractive, in practical terms are you confident that such an approach could work and would you give us a little more detail on it? How do you see it being achieved?

Mr Ford: I think you have to look back at the record of a mandatory coalition, and how we saw it operating over three years, to examine why we believe it is essential to move in the direction of a voluntary coalition. There were all kinds of problems with how the Executive operated. I highlighted some of them: the lack of any collective understanding from Ministers and their parties on policy matters; the lack of any, apparent to me, meaningful work on the Programme for Government; and, indeed, the record showed that a large part of the Programme for Government failed to be implemented.

All those issues showed that putting parties into Government purely on the basis of electoral strength and a mathematical formula, without any shared understanding around policy issues, was not a good way to run a Government.

I would contrast the achievements of our colleagues in Scotland and Wales, particularly when you take account of the fact that Wales has far fewer powers than we did, with the rather limited achievements here — such as the volume of legislation passed, for example — as an indication of the problems that arose within that Executive. That is partly why it is essential that we move towards a voluntary coalition. After both elections, the coalitions in Edinburgh speedily negotiated Programmes for Government and implemented them effectively. Indeed, recent Governments in the Oireachtas have been formed, following Dáil general elections, through inter-party negotiations that led to agreed programmes that were then carried out. These are much better examples of how to run a Government than the practice of giving people power on the basis of mathematics and no agreement.

When you look at the record of debates that occurred in the Assembly, it would be hard to deny that there were many problems that I could highlight, but I shall not — probably relating to each party — of contradictions that occurred between roles in the Executive and attitudes taken by Back-Bench Members. Fundamentally, it was not a good system of government and it did not serve the people of Northern Ireland well. It was good that people were seen to be engaging at some level, but many of the decisions taken were not particularly good. As someone who, with the support of Members of other Government parties, had the pleasure on one occasion of inflicting a significant defeat on a Government Bill, I will admit that it was great fun, but it was not good government.

Mr Kennedy: One problem that I identify with that is that any Executive would presumably have to be formed on the will of the people. That is, the parties that received the most votes and gained the most seats would get the most places. Is that fair enough logic, or are you suggesting a voluntary coalition of those who are more civilised, perhaps, and who will be in agreement with one another, rather than those who are actually more popular with the people?

Mr Ford: I highlighted earlier our belief that you could not form a voluntary coalition on the basis of 50% plus one being an adequate majority, and that we needed to be looking to something in the region of two-thirds, or thereabouts, support, which would in effect be cross-community without being rigidly defined in terms of “sticking-MLAs-into-pigeon-holes” cross-community. At this Committee, I certainly do not think that it is appropriate to use the term “more civilised” about any one party than any other party. I am not sure whether the Member was wishing to regard his own party as falling within that category.

Mr Kennedy: I will make no comment on that.

Mr Ford: As far as I am concerned, we are all here with, I accept, different electoral mandates, but the issue is what coalition can be put together by those who can agree policies, regardless of whether they can agree that they like each other. I am not sure that there are always perfect examples of Governments. Dublin is an example: people do not necessarily have to like each other; they must simply be prepared to work together and implement policies. That seems to me to be the test of a Government.

The blunt reality is that if we implemented something like a voluntary coalition, either in 1998 or now, any three of the four largest parties would, between them, be capable of commanding a majority in the House at an appropriate weighted majority level. It would be up to the parties to see what they were prepared to negotiate to implement a programme.

Mr Kennedy: Thank you.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are there any other questions or comments?

Dr Farren: Yes; just one final question from me. Do I take it from what David has been saying that a resolution to a lot of the issues related to the operation of the institutions — whether it be the manner in which the Executive is formed, or whatever — is now a precondition for restoration as far as the Alliance Party is concerned and that, without a resolution to those before 24 November, the Alliance Party would not see restoration as possible?

Mr Ford: Alliance is possibly not in the position to set preconditions on the way others, including the two Governments, will behave. We are trying to put honestly and straightforwardly on the record that which we believe is necessary in order to provide a stable, durable and lasting Government for the people of Northern Ireland.

Others may believe that that can be done with less — if that is the right term — than we are proposing needs to be done at this stage. That may or may not mean that the Governments may proceed to implement somewhat less than what we believe is necessary and appropriate, but it does not mean that we believe it any the less. We may be in a minority of seven, if you take two Governments and five parties, but we have our view as to how we have seen things operate.

Obviously, we have a slightly different take from those whose parties — in some cases, around this table — contain individuals who were members of the previous Executive and will, therefore, view things, to some extent, from a different perspective than ours. Representing a party with a unique identity, external to the Executive, we see a number of problems that arose, which we are seeking to address.

Mr Murphy: The Alliance’s comparison to the situation in Scotland, in the South or in Wales does not recognise the historical experiences here, where people’s experience of how democracy operated is very different from that in Scotland, Wales or, indeed, in the South.

Does Alliance not recognise that, if the agreement did not contain the provisions that formed the mandatory coalition Government here, the achievement of full support for the agreement, or a majority support — 69% or 70%, whatever it got here; 84% across the island — would probably not have been possible and, therefore, we would not have had a Good Friday Agreement?

The Alliance’s aspirations for people coming together on the basis of common policies and finding common ground to form a Government may well be something that we should be aiming for in years to come, but a recognition of the realities in which we currently operate mean that if we had not secured the ability to buy in by every section here, a voluntary coalition Government would not have been formed in the aftermath of 1998.

Despite all the difficulties that we had with the Government that was formed, and the stop-start nature of that, there certainly would not have been the buy-in across both sections of the community here that there was in support of the agreement without those provisions. The intentions that Alliance outlines may be things that we can aspire to down the road at some stage, but that does not currently reflect the reality of where we are in the Six Counties.

Mr Ford: In the way that we have outlined our proposals for a weighted majority, we have clearly recognised the distinctions between Scotland, Wales, the Republic and ourselves.

I will say it again if necessary: in a society such as this one, 50% plus one is an inadequate majority on which to take decisions. However, the issue that I am being asked to address is whether, because we have particular problems, we set up rigid institutions and talk about dealing with our problems at some indeterminate stage in the future; or whether we seek, as the Alliance Party suggests we should, to overcome divisions now.

We might or might not have had agreement for the mandatory coalition as it operated; however, on the basis of our experience, the mandatory coalition did not provide particularly good government. Given that we are in review — and that is probably review with a lower case “r”, since Governments seem unable to accept that it is an upper case “R” Review — we have an opportunity to set out our vision and proposals and our desire to go forward as a single community, rather than merely balance the interests of two sections of the community. That, as far as the Alliance Party is concerned, is how things were, but we wish to put our aspirations to change this society on the table now, rather than wait for some indeterminate stage in the future when it may be acceptable for others to move.

Mrs D Dodds: Mr Deputy Speaker, the Belfast Agreement, by its own definition, indicated that there must be support from each community for it. Does the Alliance Party accept that the vast and overwhelming bulk of the unionist community no longer supports or consents to the Belfast Agreement? A renegotiation of the agreement — and legislation to make a new agreement — will therefore be essential before progress can be made.

Mr Ford: First, it is fundamentally clear that the Alliance Party does not accept the concept that we are two communities: we are a single community with multiple divisions, not all of which coincide. We are becoming an increasingly diverse community; and we are becoming a community in which those from perceived backgrounds no longer conform to the stereotypes that apply to their section of the community.

That said, I do not accept that the vast majority of unionists oppose the agreement. It is clear, from elections in which people vote under a preferential, and therefore a proportional, system as opposed to casting votes in an “x” vote system, that a modest majority of unionists supports the DUP and can therefore be presumed to be against the agreement. The fact that members of the DUP are sitting in this room discussing those matters with the rest of us is an indication that, pragmatically, they are here, as the rest of us are, negotiating reforms to the agreement — not a new agreement.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We move to the DUP presentation.

Dr McCrea: Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to preface my remarks by stating that I found the charges that Martin McGuinness made against me deeply offensive, hurtful and distressing. They were totally untrue. I am here today because my party has requested that I continue to present the DUP case at the Committee.

In order for devolution, under the terms that the Government have set out, to be restored to Northern Ireland, a significant number of issues must be addressed. It is important that the Assembly not only identifies but debates those issues and that the Government take the necessary action.

11.00 am

Our submission is somewhat detailed, and therefore the DUP’s mind on many of the major issues is before the Committee. The purpose of this Committee, we are told, is to prepare for government, to scope the issues and to identify the obstacles that stand in the way of the restoration of devolved government. The Democratic Unionist Party clearly indicated that there can be no return to all-party Executive devolution in circumstances in which one party — namely, Sinn Féin/IRA — is not committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. Others do not like the fact that we are not prepared to take the IRA at face value and accept whatever is on offer. We will not simply accept and implement others’ agenda. We have to deliver our agenda, which is our manifesto that we put before the public. Regardless of the reaction, we will continue to work for our constituents to deliver our manifesto promises and principles.

In order for devolution to be restored, a significant number of issues must be addressed. It has already been suggested in Committee that those are dead issues. As far as the unionist community is concerned, although some may try to kill them, the issues are very much alive. They are significant issues that must be tackled. As the largest political party in Northern Ireland and the largest unionist party, we are mandated to ensure that only those who are committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means will sit in the Government of Northern Ireland.

Our manifesto indicated that no one — no one — who is associated with paramilitarism or criminality will sit in any Executive in Northern Ireland. Sinn Féin is attempting to distract attention away from its own inadequacies and from its failure to measure up to the standards that are required to participate in government. Sinn Féin must face up to the difficult questions on criminality, decommissioning, disbandment and policing. We heard yesterday that the Exchequer is being denied £240 million through criminality alone. What could that £240 million do for the people of Northern Ireland? Today’s newspapers tell us that the laundering of cigarettes, fuel, and all the rest of it, is a £600 million industry. The republican community and leadership have always been good at blaming everyone else for every problem that comes along, but it is now obvious that the Provisionals are, as they did previously, trying to perpetrate an acceptable level of criminality and paramilitarism, while at the same time being admitted to government.

There can be no tolerance of criminality and paramilitarism as far as participation in government is concerned. Recent IMC reports, and other reports, indicated that progress is being made. Those reports also indicated, however, that considerable work remains to be done. There appears to be little evidence that the Provos are moving to dismantle their vast empire of illegally gained assets, which they have accumulated through bank robberies and other nefarious activities over the years. There is still no sign of the proceeds from the Northern Bank robbery, never mind an acknowledgement of IRA involvement. There is no progress on the McCartney murder — from the very beginning there has been a republican cover-up, lies and deception.

There is still no acceptance by republicans of the need to fully and unequivocally support the forces of law and order in Northern Ireland. The demand for immediate entry into Government by a republican movement that still maintains its private army and is still actively engaged in criminality, spying and retention of arms is shared by very few. At the same time, there is widespread consensus for the DUP’s view that any party aspiring to Government must support the police and fully consent to positive co-operation in the implementation of law and order, as well as in the campaign to defeat terrorism from wherever it emanates.

There is a great challenge to those who were inextricably linked to terrorism in the past: they must completely renounce violence. For them, the path of terror must be consigned to the history books. There must be recognition of the primacy and authority of the security forces. They must support the efforts of the police to uphold law and order and ensure the safety of everyone in the community — everyone equal under the law, and equally subject to the law.

Her Majesty’s security forces must, and will, be supported in exercising their legitimate authority to move against and defeat terrorism, from whatever source it comes. People who want us to believe that they have moved away from their terrorist path must support the security forces, the police and the army in their efforts to defeat and bring to book those who are still active in terrorism.

On policing and justice, the DUP is very clear: there is no way that any sensible or reasonable person from either community in Northern Ireland believes that the involvement of an organisation such as Sinn Féin in the administration of policing or justice would be anything other than deeply damaging, divisive and detrimental. There is no evidence whatsoever that Southern political parties have changed their minds that Sinn Féin is unacceptable for Government in Dublin. All those factors point to work that needs to be carried out by republicans. Now is the time for delivery, not for fudge.

The Prime Minister indicated some time ago that there was nothing left to negotiate. The simple question is whether people are committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means, with all that that entails and implies. That is where the focus needs to be, and that is what the DUP is focused on. The attempts by pro-agreement parties to resurrect the failed structures of the past and to fudge once again the crucial issues that bedevil the IRA and Sinn Féin, will not work.

It is a prerequisite that the Belfast Agreement needs to be changed. That must be done through primary legislation. The Democratic Unionist Party received an overwhelming mandate on the basis of change to the Belfast Agreement and an absolute commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means by any party wishing to be in Government.

Republicans must also demonstrate that they are committed to sharing space with their unionist neighbours. The unionist culture should not be a second-class culture in Northern Ireland. While the media and others promote Gaelic sports and the Irish language, it is hugely detrimental at the same time to have the cultural aspects of unionism denigrated and denied the opportunity to flourish.

The parades issue is of crucial importance to unionism and is deeply rooted in our history. The repression of the parades culture, which has been driven by republican elements, must cease. There is no prospect of unionists sitting in Government with those who are actively pursuing an agenda to destroy their culture.

The track of insisting that all parties must be committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means before being considered eligible for Government is the right one. It is the one that will ultimately produce the stability that is required for effective devolution to be durable and credible.

There are many other issues in this paper— and we have already outlined them — that are of vital importance in progressing effective devolution for Northern Ireland. One issue is accountability of the institutions. We believe that the Belfast Agreement did not provide sufficient accountability for decision-making within Northern Ireland.

Another issue is the stability of the institutions. With four suspensions in three years and no devolution since October 2002, it is clear that the arrangements created under the Belfast Agreement did not provide for stable government.

The efficiency of the institutions is also an issue. The institutions in the past were overtly bureaucratic and costly, and we believe in efficiency in any institution that is brought forth in Northern Ireland.

Another issue is the effectiveness of institutions. We found that, while it was true that many of the decisions taken by direct rule Ministers were totally unpopular and did not recognise the needs of Northern Ireland, many of the decisions taken by the Ministers of the Assembly — on the closure of hospitals, on the change of our education system and on other issues — were also unpopular and extremely bureaucratic. We believe that there is a great need to have effectiveness of institutions and also accountability, where Ministers cannot act as little gods but are answerable to the people through the Assembly and are subject to the scrutiny and the changes that are necessary, which are coming from the community through the Assembly.

We mentioned east-west relationships, and we believe, because of the primacy of relationships between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, that it is important that we strengthen and maximise the advantages of those relationships.

We also mentioned North/South relationships. We want to live as good neighbours with our Southern neighbours. We want, indeed, to prosper, and we want to ensure that we work together on those things that are essential for the prosperity of people, whether they be in Northern Ireland or in the Irish Republic. But, certainly, we do not want the interference of the Irish Republic’s Government in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland. We also want those relationships to be subject to the authority of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

There are many issues that I have tried to include, but there is one final thing that I would like to say. I did not mention the issue of decommissioning, but it is the intransigence of Sinn Féin that blocked the unionist community from having confidence in the decommissioning process. I believe that significant PIRA decommissioning did occur. However, I still believe, as the Independent Monitoring Commission (IMC) report says, that there are significant amounts out there that have not been decommissioned. The structures of terror need to be dismantled. There is no need for any so-called army to be sitting in the wings — “We haven’t gone away, you know” — to threaten the existence of a democratic Government in Northern Ireland.

My colleagues and I are not here to negotiate those issues or to bargain with others over them. Our duty is to identify those issues that we perceive to be the obstacles in the way, which need to be removed before we can establish a democratic Government and have restored institutions. Having identified those issues, this Committee should report them to the House.

They should be openly debated in the Assembly. We need transparency and openness; therefore let us not run away from these key issues because they will not go away. They must be dealt with if we are going to engender confidence in the community and bring about a truly democratic devolved Government.

Mr M McGuinness: Obviously I am very much in favour of parties bringing to this body all the issues that concern them. Sinn Féin is more than willing, in the course of its deliberations at this body, to try and reach a far greater understanding between all the parties. There have been considerable difficulties between the Democratic Unionist Party and ourselves for some time. We are here with the sole purpose of trying to establish whether or not the DUP is prepared to recognise the importance — as stated by the two Governments — of restoring both the power-sharing and all-Ireland institutions on, or before, 24 November. I would like to seek an answer to that.

I asked a similar question of the Alliance Party and it was clear in its response. It would be helpful to this Committee if we were agreed that we are working to the effective deadline of 24 November this year.

I also noted with interest William McCrea’s remarks about previous comments that he said I made, and how hurt he was by them. I ask him to cast his mind back a couple of months to his contribution in another arena, the British House of Commons, when he made remarks which I considered to be very, very dangerous indeed. They were also ridiculous and totally and absolutely without any foundation whatsoever.

11.15 am

I also take grave exception to him addressing the Sinn Féin delegation in this room as Sinn Féin/IRA. He is effectively accusing the Sinn Féin delegation of being members of the IRA. None of the three of us is, and we take grave exception to his comments.

The issue of paramilitarism has been raised. I seek the DUP’s view of the recent statement by the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, Reg Empey, that for over two decades unionist politicians were up to their necks with loyalist paramilitaries, and had for over two decades used loyalist paramilitaries for their own ends. I believe that he was not just speaking about his own party and himself, but also speaking about the DUP.

When we use the term “loyalist paramilitaries” we are not just taking about people who are members of an illegal organisation; we are talking about people who were involved in the murder of Catholics all over the North of Ireland. Essentially, we are talking about unionist death squads. I regarded that statement by Reg Empey as a huge statement with enormous implications for both unionist parties — the Ulster Unionist Party and the DUP — as we face the task of trying to get a Government restored. I would like to hear the DUP response to that, as it is directly related to whether or not the DUP is fit to be in Government, never mind the DUP’s view of Sinn Féin.

Another issue is William McCrea’s relationship with Billy Wright. Billy Wright was well known at that time — when Willie McCrea went to speak on his behalf at a meeting in Portadown — to be the probable leader of the LVF. How does that all fit in with the attempt to portray the DUP as paragons of democracy?

William McCrea said that he believed that significant IRA decommissioning did occur. How does he know that? I would appreciate an answer to that.

The Sinn Féin leadership’s position on, and opposition to, the Northern Bank and the Robert McCartney situations are well documented on the public record as a result of countless interviews done by Gerry Adams and myself at the time of the two incidents, and I think that we gave very clear leadership.

I have got one more question on parades. I believe that there is a mighty responsibility on all of us to give proper leadership in the time ahead. Given the events of last year and previous years, we are facing a difficult summer, and it is incumbent upon all of us to do everything in our power to ensure that this is a peaceful summer. Does the DUP recognise and accept that dialogue between those who wish to parade and those whose areas they wish to parade through is an important aspect of trying to reach a resolution to what is now only a small number of difficult parading situations?

Dr McCrea: First, may I say that Billy Wright was threatened to get out of the country or be put to death because of his political belief. He was threatened by the UVF, not for any action he had taken or any crime that he had committed. I am happy for the public record of the speech that I made on that occasion to be examined; I did not condone any act that Billy Wright or any other had taken. Furthermore, I made it abundantly clear that anyone who had information on any criminal actions for which Billy Wright was liable and on which he could be charged should give it to the police and the case brought before the court. That was what was said on that occasion. I did not condone any act of Billy Wright or anyone else, but he was condemned to death because he opposed the Belfast Agreement.

I oppose the Belfast Agreement. Does that mean that, in this society, I should be condemned to death for my political belief? In a democracy, the answer is no. However, others wanted to pick out what they wanted to pick out and forget everything that was stated. I condemn any illegal or criminal action carried out by Billy Wright. In no part of my speech did I condone any of his actions.

Some people talk about “Protestant” paramilitaries but talk about the IRA without mentioning a religious group alongside it — as heard in remarks made a few moments ago. Let me tell you: if there are “Protestant” paramilitaries, then there is the “Roman Catholic” IRA. They are not Protestant paramilitaries because they do not espouse my belief of the Protestant principles — civil and religious liberty for all.

Mr M McGuinness: May I make a point of order?

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We will come back to you.

Dr McCrea: I am responding to — [Interruption.]

Mr M McGuinness: I just want to make it clear that the term “Protestant” was not used by me.

Dr McCrea: The DUP does not believe that we can close our eyes to the fact that there is no unionist majority in support of the Belfast Agreement. The Belfast Agreement has been rejected by the unionist community and relevant and significant changes must be made to it.

Also, do we want devolution? The DUP was a devolutionist party when others had long abandoned devolution. Devolution must be democratic and must work in the interests of unionists as well as nationalists. However, the Belfast Agreement is skewed in one direction, and the DUP does not believe that it can be operated. The Belfast Agreement needs significant changes. We have made that abundantly clear. Therefore, we are not trying to resurrect the Belfast Agreement. We will endeavour to get the changes that are necessary, and it will require primary legislation in the House of Commons if there is to be a movement in that direction.

We want devolved government, but we will not have devolved government that is corrupted by paramilitary or criminal activity or by those organisations who are — in the Government’s words — “inextricably linked”. I know that a lot of personal remarks have been made to me. I did not come to the Committee to make personal remarks, unlike others in their vendettas against me. My remarks have been about organisations and political parties. The Irish and British Governments believe that Sinn Féin has been inextricably linked to the IRA. Therefore, if there is any argument with the information that was given to me, maybe Sinn Féin’s friends in those Governments, and in the United States Government, should be reprimanded for what they believe and have propagated.

Mr M McGuinness: A number of questions that I asked were not answered.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): There was the point of order that you wanted to make.

Mr M McGuinness: The point of order was that at no stage during the course of my comments did I mention the term “Protestant paramilitaries”. I would not insult the Protestant religion by attributing that label to a unionist death squad.

With reference to William McCrea’s response, I had asked a number of questions. One was whether he accepted that it would be helpful to the other parties at the Committee if we knew that we were working to the timescale of 24 November.

Another question was in relation to the comments made by Reg Empey, which I regarded as having huge significance for the Ulster Unionist Party and for the DUP.

Also, in relation to William McCrea’s comment that he believes that significant IRA decommissioning occurred, I asked him how he knew that that had happened.

Finally, I asked him whether he agreed that encouraging those who wish to parade and those whose areas are to be paraded through to engage in dialogue would be a useful contribution to all of us working together to ensure that we have the peaceful summer that people deserve?

Dr McCrea: I stated that as far as the Democratic Unionist Party is concerned, we want devolution.

However, do I believe that by 24 November those who have the responsibility of coming up to the mark of democracy will do so? Do I believe that criminality will be dealt with? Do I believe that verifiable decommissioning is going to be granted? Do I believe that Sinn Féin is going to support the police in their fight against terrorism and instruct its people to work with the PSNI and to give them the information that is necessary to stop the hoods and the thuggery that is going on?

My answer is that there is nothing out there that would encourage me to believe that. Nothing that I see encourages me to believe that, in fact, the republican movement is up to it. Neither does anything that has happened in this Committee. We could not even get a debate this week in the Assembly on those cardinal issues. When I raised the issues of policing, paramilitarism, criminality and decommissioning, I was told that they were dead issues. That was the response when we debated here last week whether we could have a debate in the Chamber on those issues. The very party that blocked that is the party now trying to pretend that it is interested in those issues. They do not want to debate.

As far as I am concerned, this Committee’s purpose is to scope the issues. We are to identify the issues. Debate needs to be taken on in the open, in the House. The Assembly is the supreme debating chamber. The issues need to be tackled head on in the Assembly because they are not going to go away.

As far as Reg Empey is concerned, I am not answering for him. Reg Empey can open his soul and he knows his own heart, his past, and all the rest. It is up to him to make whatever comment he wants for himself, his colleagues and those whom he has been associated with.

As regards arms, we stated from the very beginning that when it came to that issue, we would take into account what the IMC said. We also said that we would take into account other sources that are available to us. The Policing Board would give us information on what is happening on the ground, and there is also what we know from our own communities. We said that we would take all of those in and, in the final analysis, we would make our own judgement.

I have made the judgement of the Democratic Unionist Party. Our judgement is that significant arms were decommissioned, but certainly not verifiably and certainly not in accordance with what we had said about it having to be transparent. That was because of the objections of others, yet there was no problem to have verifiability when they were taking down the towers at Newry and along the border; they had to be taken down in the full view of cameras to try to appease and give confidence within the nationalist or republican community. We are saying that these issues will not be bluffed. They will not be fudged, as far as we are concerned, and they will not go away.

As far as parades are concerned, let me make this clear: I believe that this should be a free country. There should be freedom for people to walk on the Queen’s highway. The idea that you have to ask a few persons, well, I will give an example. We had a parade after the deliberate agitation from outside Bellaghy, and then the burning of the bread van in Maghera, just a couple of years ago, when we were supposed to have peace. Who was standing in the front line of the objectors and protestors? Leading Sinn Féin persons. Who was behind them? People whom they bussed in to be offended in Maghera.

What we have had is a situation that has been engineered deliberately. So what happened? We had a parade through Magherafelt. After having agitated in Maghera, having agitated in Bellaghy, they then came to us and said that there was a nationalist estate in Magherafelt where the parade goes past every four or five years up to our own church. What did the nationalist/republican community do? They came to the town to agitate on how they could get a committee set up to object. What did the people say? The people said: “Willie McCrea. Whenever we are in need, he is the person we go to. Get back to Bellaghy, get back to Maghera; you are not starting the agitation here.” The only ones who stopped them were the local community.

11.30 am

This is not a parades issue, where people really come to be offended. Desertmartin is practically a totally unionist town. There is a parade by the Hibernians every year. Because of the agitation in Bellaghy, I was asked should we stop the parade in Desertmartin. I said no. They have been walking there for years, for generations. It is their culture. Why stop it? And we could have stopped it, because it is a completely unionist community. But we did not. We did not fall into the trap that was set for us.

There are those who know fine well. They made a speech saying that they had got it in Pomeroy, they had got it in Bellaghy and they were identifying other particular places where they would start the agitation. It was not that the ordinary people were objecting to those parades —and this applies also to many of the ordinary people on the Garvaghy Road. I know from my contacts with local elected representatives and others there that the local people were threatened to make them come out and object. In fact, some even received a bullet through their letterbox because they were not compliant.

So let no one come here with a pious idea about parades somehow being an issue between the two communities. The tragedy is that a paramilitary grouping is sitting as a leech on its community, seeking to destroy that community, and therefore seeking to destroy the relationships between both unionist and nationalist and Protestant and Roman Catholic communities. If it had been left to the ordinary people in those towns, there would have been no need for all those commissions and all that dialogue, because there were good relationships on the ground until the agitation took place.

Mr M McGuinness: In relation to the first question that I asked about whether the DUP believes that there will be an Executive and a North/South Ministerial Council up and running by 24 November 2006, his answer was quite open. It gives me some encouragement that if the DUP recognised that important work could be done between us here as political parties on the Preparation for Government Committee, we could address many of the concerns that have been raised.

The difficulty is that the demand to debate all of those issues in the Assembly worries Sinn Féin. And it should worry all the other parties, because it clearly gives the impression that the DUP’s only interest is to justify itself to its public by giving the impression that it is involved in important work in the Assembly.

The big question is where all of those debates go. How does an Assembly debate on the issue of arms resolve that issue when many people believe that it has been resolved anyway? On the issue of criminality and policing, for example, if the DUP were able to be sensible about how we resolve all the concerns around those issues, it should take seriously our thoughts that we form a subcommittee of this Committee to deal with the issue of policing.

We are on public record stating how we intend to take this process forward, and there is already considerable common ground between all major parties vis-à-vis the acceptance that powers should be transferred from London to a locally elected Admin­istration. I believe — and I am open to correction — that the DUP has been on public record for a number of years stating that it is also in favour of that. Therefore, it strikes me that a considerable amount of work could be done if we formed a subcommittee.

Would the DUP be willing to engage in that? Failure to engage in such a subcommittee and to consistently persist in demanding debates in what is just a waffling shop downstairs, with direct rule Ministers continually taking all the big decisions that affect our lives, has no credibility whatsoever among the public. People are anxious about whether the institutions will be restored by 24 November. I am saying all that to be helpful.

There is a great deal of tension and difficulty between the DUP and Sinn Féin, but I am trying to tease out whether it is “game on” for dealing with those issues sensibly or whether we will be in a grandstanding session downstairs. We will oppose that tooth and nail because we do not believe that it will get us anywhere. In fact, it would set us back for some time and lend nothing whatsoever to giving people hope and confidence that the parties are, at long last, seriously engaging with one another in a real way to deal with those difficult issues.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Mr McCrea, do you wish to respond? A number of other Members also wish to speak, but we will work around that.

Dr McCrea: I have said in the past that this Committee has a limited remit. We do not believe that should be extended; the rest of the business should be done in, and through, the Assembly. We voted for the motion to establish an economic working group, which is of primary importance, but that has not got off the ground because others tried to remove it from the place it was supposed to be. It was up to the Business Committee to get it off the ground.

The general public want to see that we are genuinely moving forward and that the impediments to restoring democratic institutions are removed. With the greatest respect, I cannot say whether the deadline of 24 November will be met. However, it is abundantly clear that there are parties that are inextricably linked to organisations that are engaged in money laundering, fuel laundering, extortion, tax evasion, smuggling and criminal activity. The most recent IMC report states that there are indications that some senior members of PIRA, as distinct from the organisation itself, are involved in criminality, but that is a cop-out.

When that organisation murders someone, the cop-out is that it was not officially sanctioned. That was the cop-out line when they failed to murder me and my family. I was to be the final act the night before they were to draw the curtains and stop all the shootings. That was to be the last big hoo-ha.

But when they failed to do it, what was their line? That it was not officially sanctioned. That is the line that they take, but it does not bluff anybody; it certainly does not bluff the DUP.

This is what it says:

“there are indications that some members, including some senior ones… are still involved in crime, including offences such as fuel laundering, money laundering, extortion, tax evasion, smuggling.”

That is what the last IMC report states; I am simply repeating it.

Recent reports from the Gardaí made it abundantly clear that 10,000 ammunition rounds that it discovered were PIRA rounds and were in no way linked to what are called dissident republicans. The Gardaí said that any link with dissident republicans had been ruled out and that there was a considerable amount of other stuff out there.

Let us not have this pious way of engagement. As far as this Committee is concerned, we are here to scope and identify the issues, which is certainly what we are doing. I hope that other parties will also identify the issues that have been outlined in the papers that we received.

We are speaking about those issues today, but they will not go away. No matter what other impediments there are to a functioning Executive and Assembly, I have mentioned the major issues that must be tackled. The Belfast Agreement is certainly not acceptable and must be dealt with; we must tackle the structures, the efficiency and effectiveness of Government. Those are all major issues that must be dealt with, but there are also other overlying issues.

Dr Farren asked a question of Mr Ford to see whether there was a line between the two and, to be honest, there are overarching issues — on policing, arms and other matters that I have constantly mentioned since I joined this Committee. Unless those issues are dealt with, they will not go away, no matter how they are tried to be bluffed around.

As Mr Blair said, there is really nothing more to negotiate and now is the time to deliver. We are asking those who are involved in criminal activities to deliver. Will they do it by 24 November to the satisfaction of the unionist community?

As far as policing and justice are concerned, let us make no mistake. Policing and justice will only be a reality, and even then only through legislation, when there is confidence in the community that it is appropriate that they are devolved. There is certainly not that confidence within the community at this time.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Naomi Long?

Mr M McGuinness: I am not finished yet.

I suggested that we use this Committee as a vehicle to deal with many of the issues raised between us, as opposed to the DUP approach of taking them to the Floor of the Assembly. I just do not understand where that approach takes us. If you consider the issues of paramilitarism, decommissioning, criminality and the plethora of other issues that have been raised on the Floor of the Assembly, how does doing that resolve those issues, given the DUP’s stated position that they will negotiate and take this situation forward only with the British Government? That means that it is a worthless exercise for the Ulster Unionists, the Alliance Party, the SDLP or Sinn Féin to engage in any debate in the Assembly on those particular issues.

It is a source of great concern to me that we are faced with a situation where, in all probability, the Committee on the Preparation for Government is effectively going nowhere, because the DUP see it as a vehicle to get debates in the Assembly, without offering any indication whatsoever as to how we remedy the issues.

I also want to say that I categorically reject many of the allegations that were made by William McCrea, through which he, by innuendo, tried to implicate Sinn Féin.

We need an answer to that question — not just in terms of Sinn Féin, but all the other parties are entitled to get the circle squared around the DUP assertion that the only negotiations that they are going to conduct are between themselves and the British Government. It begs the question of where all the other parties fit in. It raises the issue that all the contributions that have been made thus far by the DUP appear to be designed only to get debates in the Assembly, without giving us any explanation whatever about where the results of those debates will go.

I am sure that not every party around this table is going to end up agreeing with whatever stance is adopted by the DUP in relation to quite a number of issues. Therefore, somebody on the DUP side needs to explain to us how we get remedies to these problems. I am suggesting a way of dealing with the issue, and that is by a real engagement between all the parties here around the issues, and by setting up a subcommittee to deal with the issue of policing, for example, because that will impact on the issue of criminality. We in Sinn Féin are prepared to play our part in all of that. From the outset we have made it clear that our position is that we want to see powers transferred from London to here. That enables Sinn Féin to go to a special conference of our party members from all over the island to deal with the issue of policing in a very comprehensive way, and in a way which I think will find much agreement from many of the parties around the table — unless, of course, the DUP does not want us to go forward to a special conference to deal with that issue.

We could end up spending an awful lot of time here folks on whether we are going to get debates in the Assembly and no time at all on setting about the real work of truly preparing to put the Government into position.

11.45 am

Dr McCrea: I have stated this over and over again, but I will repeat it, Deputy Speaker; it is clear that Sinn Féin members want to bypass the Assembly at all costs. They do not want to debate. That is not their usual forte and their best ground is not in the debating chamber. They expose their total inadequacies — and yet they were elected to debate in the Chamber. That is how they got here. Therefore they want to bypass it, and that is why at all costs they want things to be brought here. They want this Committee to be the place where we do it, rather than have the other Members actively engaged in the issues.

Let me make it clear that we will talk. The Democratic Unionist Party will talk and will negotiate with all totally democratic parties and the parties that we perceive are democratic parties. However, we are not here in the Committee to negotiate, because negotiation is outside the remit of this Committee. I notice that Mr Ford said that he was not here to renegotiate or to negotiate a new agreement. With the greatest respect to him —

Mr Ford: Will you take a point of information on that?

Dr McCrea: Yes.

Mr Ford: Chair, I think that I am being quoted slightly out of context. I said that in the context of my support for the principles of the agreement and my desire to reform the existing agreement, not with regard to the question of whether this Committee was in negotiating mode, which is what Dr McCrea is addressing at the moment.

Dr McCrea: Yes, but irrespective of that, you were making a statement that you were not here to negotiate a new agreement.

We are not here to negotiate, we are here to scope the issues. That was the remit of this Committee — that is what the Secretary of the State told us the remit of this Committee was. Therefore, the negotiations will be done by the leader of my party and with the Democratic Unionist party in a way that they believe is appropriate and proper. They will do it with the Government, and they will carry on negotiations with those parties that they believe are democratic. That is what has happened in the past.

We want debates in the Assembly, and we want transparency, openness and the engagement of Members. We want to see how that Assembly can carry forth many of the issues, because, remember, it is the Assembly and not this Committee that was elected to deal with the issues that the Government is forcing on them at the moment. This Committee was never elected for that purpose; it was chosen for a specific task. All 108 Members were elected to do the business of dealing with the bread-and-butter issues that affect daily life.

Mr M McGuinness: I am conscious that I am in danger of dominating the question time on the DUP submission, and I respect that other parties have questions to ask, so I will stop after this question. I may return to other questions later.

Out of respect for all the parties around this table, the DUP needs to explain how a negotiation between the Rev Ian Paisley and the British Prime Minister Tony Blair will resolve all those problems. Given that Tony Blair has publicly stated that he is well and truly satisfied on the issue of arms, how does a negotiation between Ian Paisley and the British Prime Minister sort that one out?

In terms of paramilitarism, Tony Blair has also stated in the joint statement with the Taoiseach Bertie Ahern that he wants to see the institutions up by 24 November. Clearly, the institutions that he is speaking about are a power-sharing government in the North that consists of the DUP, Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Ulster Unionist Party. He appears satisfied on that issue.

I think the parties here are entitled to an explanation as to how this negotiation between Ian Paisley and Tony Blair will resolve all our problems, and we also need to know whether there are any problems that we can sort out among ourselves. That is why I am offering, in the course of this Committee, an opportunity for us to deal with these issues face to face and in a real way to try to get a remedy for the difficulties that appear to exist.

Dr McCrea: The Blair principles are those things that he scored on the board at the time of the Belfast Agreement, and certainly they were principles that we believed were very sensible. The promise that he made to the people was that there was to be no fudging those issues. All the paramilitary and criminality issues were to be dealt with, and dealt with to the satisfaction of the community.

I make it abundantly clear: there is no satisfaction within the unionist community that these things have been dealt with. If Mr Blair has to face up to realities as regard the issues, that is something that he will have to deal with. I make it abundantly clear that our party had been very clear and open with the Government. These issues must be dealt with to the satisfaction of our community. This is not a Committee for negotiations; this is a Committee with a remit to scope the issues. That is what we are doing at this present moment.

I can assure you that I am not here to negotiate, and I have no authority to negotiate. Neither do I see it as my place to negotiate because negotiations are to be done by the party through those members who are delegated so to do.

If I were delegated to do it at that time, that would be the appropriate place and the appropriate time, but this Committee has been delegated with the responsibility by the Government to scope the issues, and that is what I intend to stick to, and we are not moving; as far as this Committee is concerned, we are not lengthening its remit.

Mrs Long: First of all may I thank you for your presentation, Mr McCrea, in terms of the paper and your presentation of it. There are four issues that I would like to raise with you initially some of which just require clarification and some of which require a fuller response.

When you addressed issues to do with paramilitarism, criminality and decommissioning you made a specific reference to one party, namely Sinn Féin, and said that it had issues with this. It is quite clear from recent decisions that have been taken by other groups within the Assembly that that is not a fair assessment in that other parties also have links to paramilitary organisations through association with elected representatives who have associations with those groups.

It is not, therefore, at this stage inconceivable that you could have a member of another party grouping as part of the ministerial team who would also have direct links to paramilitary organisations. Given that that is the case, are there any comments that you would want to make in relation specifically to paramilitarism in the more general sense as opposed to focusing simply on the activities of one organisation? What about the wider effects of paramilitarism on the future of the Assembly and also in terms of democracy and the principles of democracy which should apply to all ministerial post holders and indeed all elected representatives?

The second issue is one from your paper and concerns equality and human rights. I think it is on page 3, and you make reference to the unionist community there. The Alliance Party view is clear that the emphasis on rights should be on the protection of the rights of individuals rather than just on collective or group rights. Group rights and collective rights have often characterised some of the least equal societies in the world as opposed to the most equal, and what I want to know is if that reference is simply a concern that individuals in those communities may have suffered from discrimination and that what you are looking for, I suppose, is fair and equitable treatment for all individuals regardless of their background. I am always slightly wary of any reference to rights for particular groups.

The third issue that I want to raise is one in relation to accountability, something that we raised in our original submission. I noted on page 4 of your submission that you had raised it. You have also raised it today, and it seems to be key in terms not just of how government operates but also in terms of the lack of trust that exists, and that without accountability is a recipe for disaster.

In terms of your reference first of all to the Prime Minister’s comments about there being nothing more to negotiate and also your reference on page 4 to the Government’s comprehensive agreement so-called, are you indicating that you feel that issues around accountability and indeed the other issues which you have raised in your paper have been addressed in that agreement or are there additional issues which you feel were not fully addressed in that agreement? I should like to be clear on that.

The fourth question is in the context of the discussion that we have had so far.

Notwithstanding your express view that the issues that are outstanding are, to some degree, out of your hands and beyond your control, do you believe that it is possible that your party could be in a position where it is sufficiently confident that those issues have been adequately addressed by the 24 November deadline?

Dr McCrea: I will call on Diane to deal with the equality issue, which is the second issue. I will deal with the first of the four issues. As you know, our Government, the Republic’s Government and the American Government have determined that one party is inextricably linked to a terrorist organisation, and that party is Sinn Féin. That is why unionists believe that that issue must be dealt with. However, my leader said that the position that the Ulster Unionsts have forced upon us has thrown everything into the melting pot, because all parties that have links to terrorist organisations must be treated the same.

I do not know Mr Ervine’s position in respect to the Ulster Unionist Party. I am told, on the one hand, by Madam Speaker that there is no Ulster Unionist Party here: there is the Ulster Unionist Assembly Group. Members of the Ulster Unionist Party then said that they are a party in the Assembly. I honestly do not know the answer; it is out of my hands. Are the Ulster Unionists linked to the PUP or is it just an exercise, as the Ulster Unionists say, to deny Sinn Féin a seat in the Executive? It would be interesting to hear from the Ulster Unionists. However, if those two parties are now the one party and are therefore “inextricably linked”, then that does lead to the same position. My leader made that clear in the Great Hall.

On accountability, the DUP believes that the primacy of the Assembly must be maintained. Mr Ford told us that, in the past, he could have moved a motion that commanded a majority in the House, but a Minister could defy the House if he wanted because he was totally independent. If my memory serves me right, we got agreement on that, and there was a backdown. The Executive told Mr Foster that there was an issue on which they would not back him if he pushed it, because there was a rebellion in the ranks of all the parties. Therefore Mr Foster had to back down on one issue. Irrespective of who the Minister is, there must be accountability to the Assembly. The DUP also said that the North/South bodies must be accountable to the Assembly as well. The Assembly is paramount.

That is not unusual. At Westminster, a number of parties have defeated a Government with a majority of 66 on some major pieces of legislation. That is not unhealthy — on the contrary, it is a healthy exercise. It proves that a Government, irrespective of who they may be, cannot walk over the Assembly.

12.00 noon

Government Ministers were not elected as Government Ministers; they were elected as Assembly Members. Therefore primacy and authority should rest with the Assembly; it should at least be able to hold the Executive to a vote as a check. The Assembly voting against what a Minister is doing should mean something. The DUP believes in the real accountability of Ministers.

The comprehensive agreement — which, we are told, is not a comprehensive agreement as no one agreed to it — did address some of those issues and faced them down.

I am not saying that those matters were all concluded to our satisfaction, but it did seek and endeavour to acknowledge that there were major problems, such as those of accountability, which had to be faced.

As for the 24 November deadline, we as a party must be convinced that the obstacles to devolution are addressed. Remember that we promised that to our community. We also promised that we would go back to our community, consult widely and seek to bring that constituency with us. We are not doing something behind their backs.

Many of the issues are not within our control, but they are certainly within our judgement. We have the right on the behalf of our people to make that judgement because, remember, in the final analysis, the people will make their judgement when everyone faces them at the polls.

Mrs D Dodds: Mrs Long made a point in her question about whether we believe that equality issues are particular to individuals or to groups within society. I think that they are both of those things. The section that we have included on equality issues is quite small, but I and a number of other people have been working on equality issues for quite some time and, at a future date, we will be happy to scope those issues with the Committee, if it so desires, because they are very important.

We believe in an equal society and that everyone should have a share in our society and in its future. That is vital for progression within this community.

I shall not go into all the details, but I will provide an example of where inequality has been almost institutionalised within some aspects of government in Northern Ireland. Let us look at the issue of festival funding in Northern Ireland and take the example of Belfast. Over the last 10 or 15 years a very lively, well-defined and progressive festival movement has grown within Belfast, but mostly within the nationalist community.

Very little of that festival funding has gone to the unionist community. That may have been because of problems of capacity within the community or all sorts of other issues. However, instead of seeking to address the imbalance and the inequality in funding, the Government Department responsible simply put a moratorium on any future applications. Therefore, until very recently, in the last number of months, there was a situation in which the only festivals that were funded in Belfast were from the nationalist community, such as the West Belfast Festival, the Ardoyne Fleadh, and the Newlodge Festival. Now, we have a situation where everybody and every community can apply for festival funding equally.

That is the inequality; those are the issues that we need to start looking at and addressing so that we have the opportunity for everybody to make those applications on an equal basis.

That is what we mean by equality issues. We want to see more and more of those equality issues addressed. I have a huge equality issue with Belfast Education and Library Board (BELB) where, in terms of Youth Service funding within the Oldpark electoral area of Belfast, BELB spends £264,000 a year within the nationalist community. It spends nothing within the unionist community. Those are hard issues, but they have to be faced and addressed. We need to apply ourselves to addressing those matters because they take us on to perceptions of inequality and tensions throughout the community. So — sorry if this is a bit longwinded — it is actually a combination of both, and those are a couple of examples.

Mrs Long: There are conflicting views on this. Clearly, there is an issue about equality of treatment and that all people are treated equally, and there is an issue about seeking equality of outcome, and that is where you were referring to situations where there is insufficient capacity for people to achieve the same outcomes and, therefore, some investment needs to be made to give people a fair chance.

Those are two slightly separate issues, and they need to be addressed. In terms of referring to group rights — and this is my main concern — human rights is about defending the right of the individual to fair treatment and to be treated equally both under the law and as a full member of society. Therefore to define people simply as members of groups may benefit those individuals but may also discriminate against others who will be less equal if their group is less powerful.

That is the issue that I am trying to raise. I would like to see equality issues and issues about fairness and human rights dealt with on the basis of the rights of the individual as opposed to those of groups. That is not to the disadvantage of any community; in fact, it is to the advantage of all. The point that I am trying to explore is the definition of whether rights are attributed to particular groups because of their association or to the individuals within those groups because of their individual human rights. There is a distinction between the two. Experience shows that, in the least equal societies in the world, the focus has been on rights attributed because of membership of groups, as opposed to individual rights given to individual members of society based on their individual human rights.

I feel that when we are talking about human rights and equality issues, it is important to look at the rights attributed to individuals rather than focusing on group rights and that, where there are inequalities, they are resolved through that mechanism.

In relation to the question about whether or not the DUP believes it possible that it could be sufficiently confident, I phrased the question notwithstanding the DUP’s view that many of those issues are out of its hands, because that was made clear in the presentation. I was not asking whether that would be resolved, because at this stage there is no yes or no answer to that.

I am simply trying to explore whether the DUP thinks that is possible, given the time frame that we are operating in. It is important that we know whether the DUP believes it is possible within the period leading up to 24 November that it could be sufficiently satisfied, that it could have consulted with its party membership, and indeed with the community that it represents. So I am not asking for the DUP to say that it is satisfied now or that it will be satisfied on 24 November, but simply whether it believes that it is an attainable goal.

Dr McCrea: My honest opinion is that nothing I have heard from the republican community has given me any confidence whatsoever that those who have got to meet the waterline of democracy are willing to do so. Therefore I honestly have very grave doubts that that can be a reality.

Mr McFarland: I thank William for his submission. I am struck that there is much common ground between our take on the matter and that of the DUP.

I have three questions, which I will deal with individually. They are on different topics, and I do not wish to get them mixed up. All the parties around the table have stated that they want to see devolution. Devolution will come only if there is agreement between the two traditions. The DUP currently represents the unionist tradition. It has the largest vote and is in the driving seat when it comes to whether there is to be a deal. Sinn Féin is in the driving seat in representing broad nationalism, not just republicanism. If we are to achieve any accommodation and get devolution up and running, there will have to be a deal at some stage between the Democratic Unionist Party and Sinn Féin. Do William and the DUP accept those statements as a political reality, whatever the timescale may be, and that, in the end, that will have to be the way in which devolution works?

Dr McCrea: In order for devolution to be restored on the terms that the Government have set out — at present, that is to restore the Executive — significant issues must be dealt with. However, in the House of Commons, the Secretary of State said that restoration was not the only path. He was perhaps challenging certain Members of the House from the nationalist community to take another route — that of voluntary coalition.

Therefore if a party is not willing to deal with the issues that are the impediments to devolution on the terms that the Government have set out, and we cannot move forward, we should form a voluntary coalition. In many ways, I resent the Government’s terms, because what they, and the Irish Republic’s Government, are saying to us is: “Unless you accept into your Government those whom we wouldn’t accept, and are not willing to accept, because we do not believe that they come up to the mark of democracy, you can have no Government.”

No other society would accept that. It is totally unreasonable for the Governments to say that a minority of people, who represent less than 20% of the population, could hold back devolution if 80% of the population were willing to form a voluntary coalition Government. Why should 80% of the population not form a Government? If we are supposed to have moved into a new era in which that 20% has turned its back on violence, and in which there are no guns and nothing to threaten devolved government, why would we not move forward? Who would threaten it, other than those who would say: “We will take another path if we can’t be in government”?

The truth is that democracy alone has to be the basis of government. With the greatest respect to Alan McFarland, polluting democracy does not provide a foundation for progress or stability. We stated clearly in our presentation that accountability is one matter as regards the institutions, but their stability is another matter. I shall pose a question: there have been four suspensions in three years. What brought the institutions down? Each occasion involved paramilitary activity and the exposure of such deeds.

12.15 pm

Say, for example, that we had a devolved Government, and it was found that, in the background, there was a store of IRA arms that that organisation used to train and carry on its activity. What would that do to our institutions and to democracy? People tell me all the time what our people want. Those whom the Democratic Unionist Party represents are fed up with Governments repeatedly rising and falling because of terrorist activity and criminality. They say that they do not want democracy to be polluted; they want to move forward on the grounds of democratic principles alone.

My party leader has said that we should have those grounds and that they should be totally democratic with complete allegiance to democracy and to the authority of the security forces in taking on those who threaten them. It is not enough to say, “We will not have the PIRA being active, but we will close our eyes to the Real IRA or the Continuity IRA”. Did we not see on this morning’s news that the bringing in of a group of weapons, which was a serious threat to the stability of Northern Ireland, was foiled? What others have not been foiled? There is a constant threat.

Is everyone saying clearly to the Democratic Unionist Party that if we had a Government and the Real IRA threatened its stability, every party in that Government would support the PSNI and the Army in taking on the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA and defeating them? Unless they do, they are not wedded totally to democracy.

We state clearly that parties cannot have it both ways. There must be stable institutions, and there are other ways forward if this one does not succeed. However, it will not succeed unless it comes up to the democratic test.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Alan, I will draw your attention to the fact that we must adjourn at 12.30 pm and we have one or two other questions.

Mr McFarland: The background philosophy is interesting and very important to the way forward. William is saying that if the IMC can show beyond reasonable doubt, while making the unionist community confident, that the republican movement, the military wing of Sinn Féin as was — or as is — has gone away and that criminality is down, and if it were believed that Sinn Féin were a democratic party, at that stage, whatever the time frame, the Democratic Unionist Party would go into government with it.

I think that is what they have said before in public, and I am taking it that —

Dr McCrea: May I just correct that. I read this out the other day. Our manifesto says:

“no-one who is associated with paramilitarism or criminality will be in any Executive”.

It goes on:

“Sinn Féin could then only be considered for entry to an Executive after

- Complete visible, verifiable decommissioning.”

— That is an issue that still has to be dealt with —

“- A total end to all paramilitary and criminal activity.

- The community is convinced the IRA has been stood down.”

We cannot have an army sitting in the wings that continues to threaten us. If there were a real renunciation of violence, if there were a real renunciation of terrorism and the path of terrorism and if that were totally wedded to, what would anyone want with such an organisation? I speak right across the community now. There is no way in a democracy that you can have paramilitary groupings, irrespective of whether they come from the unionist community or the nationalist/republican community, sitting in the wings to threaten any democratic institution. The source of that is our November 2005 manifesto.

Mr McFarland: I want to tease out the voluntary coalition idea. It is quite interesting and one that we have looked at in the past. What I understood William to say was that since they do not accept at the moment that Sinn Féin is a bona fide democratic party, they would happily now go into government with the SDLP and ourselves and that that would be acceptable, despite the fact that Sinn Féin represents the majority of nationalism. I wonder if at a philosophical level he accepts that if, for example, the Ulster Unionist Party believed an IMC report that Sinn Féin was now a democratic party and the DUP did not believe it, that it would be OK for Sinn Féin and the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists to go into government when the DUP did not want to go into government. If it is OK, one could argue, to exclude the majority of nationalism, it should equally be OK, providing the circumstances felt right to the parties, to exclude the majority of unionism. I think in the past they have said on record that they do not believe it is right that they, as the majority of unionism, should be excluded. I am just trying to explore what the ground rules might be with different combinations of parties going into government with different levels of confidence.

Dr McCrea: In direct answer to that, I must say that the Ulster Unionist Party knows that we have difficulties now, and I pointed that out in answer to Naomi’s question. The Ulster Unionists, I believe, have got themselves onto a hook, and unless they get off it, it is going to make it very difficult. If they are linking themselves to a terrorist organisation through bringing in to its membership the leader of the political party that is the front for a terrorist organisation, that makes a voluntary coalition even more difficult. Again, that is not something of our making. We certainly desire an inclusive Executive but on completely democratic lines. We cannot have a Government that is tinged with either one organisation or with the other organisation threatening from the wings to destabilise the community or to bring that Government down. There is only one legitimate authority as regards the rule of law, and that is the police, aided by the Army.

We cannot have any private army sitting in the wings to pollute that. Therefore there is a difficulty. For a voluntary coalition to happen there is now a challenge to the Ulster Unionist Party to remove itself from the unhealthy relationship with a parliamentary organisation that it has through its recent decision. Now that is a decision which we cannot make, but it is one that that party must take.

Mr McFarland: Chairman, my question was that if, for example, we dissolved the UUPAG we might be, in the DUP’s eyes, acceptable partners for Government.

Would it be acceptable for the Democratic Unionist Party, the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP to form a voluntary coalition and go into government, if we get to the stage in September where an IMC report says that the Sinn Féin leadership is dedicated to democratic politics, criminality is dropped to a level that the police can deal with, and it has somehow demonstrated that decommissioning had been complete or whatever?

Would the Democratic Unionist Party accept as a matter of principle at that stage that — although it might not be able to accept Sinn Féin in government — if Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Ulster Unionist Party recreated the first Assembly on a voluntary coalition that three parties can go ahead without the major party in unionism? The suggestion is that the other parties go ahead without the lead party in nationalism. Is that a philosophically acceptable thing to do?

Dr McCrea: I suggest that that would certainly not lend itself to stability and I will give you the reason. Surely the Ulster Unionist Party has learned the lesson that it cannot just simply take the word of Sinn Féin/IRA? The UUP was nearly decimated because it jumped and said: “Now jump.” Even to make that suggestion shows that there is no learning from the lessons of what has happened at the ballot box and over the last number of months, and I suggest that that would be a very good idea to test with the electorate.

I assure the Ulster Unionist Party that if it felt that it was in difficulties now, it would be in greater difficulties if it propounded that it would remove a democratic party to go into bed with those who have been inextricably linked — the UUP agreed with Sinn Féin’s bona fides before. How many times do you have to get fingers burnt before you say: “Listen, I have my fingers in the fire here, I had better take them out.”

To suggest that it would be right to throw out a democratic party — and concerning voluntary coalition I did notice that it was suggested here that it would be the SDLP, the Ulster Unionists and ourselves. We did not say that. There is no reason why the coalition would not be wider than that, which certainly would include the Alliance Party as well.

Mr McFarland: Chairman, I was just exploring the philosophy. I have a few more questions that I would like to ask but I see that time has beaten us.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Can we hold all the questions to — [Interruption.]

Mr M McGuinness: Chairman, I do not have a question, but I again take grave exception to the use of the term “Sinn Féin/IRA” in relation to the Sinn Féin delegation.

Mr McFarland: Chairman, can I just confirm that I can lead off after lunch?

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Yes. 2.00 pm.

The Committee was suspended at 12.27 pm.

On resuming —

2.02 pm

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We now have a quorum. I have also received some apologies and changes.

Mr Murphy: John O’Dowd is here in place of Michelle Gildernew.

Ms Ritchie: I am here in place of Mark Durkan.

Mr Ford: Apologies from Naomi Long who hopes to join us later, and I hope that Kieran McCarthy will also be here before she arrives.

Mr McFarland: Chairman, I gave you my changes. Unfortunately the other two are not able to be here.

Dr McCrea: I hope that Maurice Morrow and Diane Dodds will join us shortly.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We finished before lunch with Alan and questions, so we will resume.

Mr McFarland: We were having a philosophical discussion before lunch, but I want to get some answers from William on more practical issues.

My next question concerns the status of the comprehensive agreement because we have heard in the media and indeed around the table here that — from what I understand as the SDLP’s position, from what Martin McGuinness said yesterday and certainly from what we ourselves agree — we are not tied to the comprehensive agreement. There are bits of it that we fundamentally disagree with, particularly if we, or the SDLP, do not support the Ministers, we get removed from ministerial office leaving Sinn Féin and the DUP in Government together. So some of it is not completely satisfactory.

What is the status of the comprehensive agreement? We have heard in the media from members of the DUP that it is non-negotiable and that it is their part of the deal with the Government. Given that the other parties round the table — and Alliance, I am sure — are not comfortable with it, does the DUP see it being driven through with the Government? Does the DUP consider it as being solid and agreed already given that other parties have not bought into it?

Dr McCrea: We did not waste our time in the talks. They were intensive and extensive, and we certainly did not waste our time going into the talks to discover that we might as well not have been there. We do not intend to go back a base. I do not know what base they want us to go back to, but one thing is sure — we are not going back to the base of the Belfast Agreement.

Significant changes must be made, and while the comprehensive agreement does not address all the changes that we were looking for, we believe that the changes made have brought practical measures that will assist in stability and accountability. As far as the DUP is concerned, those issues that we have agreed with the Government are resolved, and we do not feel that there is any necessity to return to them.

Mr McFarland: So as far as the DUP is concerned, the changes are inviolate; they have been agreed by them and the Government even though none of the other parties have agreed them. Is that correct?

Dr McCrea: It depends on the position that one holds on these issues. We were told by the Government that others agreed with them. I do not know if that was window dressing by the Government, but those others are perhaps now trying to back off from what was in the comprehensive agreement. We do not intend to back down from what we agreed with the Government; likewise, we do not intend to back down from our principles. Whatever we intended, we agreed and we held to our principles.

One must remember that the Government will have to give the green light before the institutions can be restored. We believe that these are issues that must be addressed. If the Government want to move away from the comprehensive agreement, one must ask where they stand on that. Did they mislead us and other parties into believing that a comprehensive agreement was in place? Not only the Government but, I am led to believe, the Dublin Government and the American Government — thus showing it had international acceptance — had a clear understanding that it would provide a way forward to progress devolution. We would expect the Government to maintain that position.

Mr McFarland: Chairman, I will round this off.

Dr McCrea: Remember, this is an area that we are negotiating with the Government. We said that this is not the place to talk about such matters; we will discuss them with the Government. We will talk frankly to the Government about any issue they wish to raise with us again.

Mr McFarland: The part under the First Minister and Deputy First Minister section, for example, that the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists would be excluded from Government — is that still inviolate in here or do you see matters like that being re-examined? Are you having other negotiations with the Government, which we are not seeing and which are not in the comprehensive agreement?

Dr McCrea: We are in constant contact with the Government, and that is correct, as we are the largest party in Northern Ireland and certainly have a point to put forward. It is up to other parties how the Government deal with them and talk to them. I am not dictating to the Government how they deal with anybody. However, we are constantly meeting the Government and believe that the agreements that we reached with the Government before the comprehensive agreement are something that they will stand by. When does an agreement not become agreement? The Government must say where they stand on it.

Mr McFarland: I asked that question because — and this goes back to my earlier point — ultimately, if there has to be agreement between the lead voices of unionism and nationalism, it takes two or more to have an agreement. It is difficult to agree with oneself; I am just pointing out that there is an issue there.

My next question, on criminality, is slightly philosophical. I am trying to tease this out, but there is continuing difficulty with criminality — the IMC reports have set that out. An Organised Crime Task Force report published yesterday states that there has been a decrease in the level of criminality from the previous IMC report. Another IMC report on normalisation is due at the end of August, which will give a threat assessment that will presumably cover matters such as criminality. The next IMC report in October, which may be brought forward to September — will set out the position at that stage.

There is mafia-organised crime in America; and a relatively high level of organised crime is now endemic in society in eastern Europe, Russia, Europe and Great Britain. That is why the organised crime task force was set up and why a new FBI organisation is being set up to deal with serious organised crime — a sort of Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) for the whole of the United Kingdom. It is recognised that there is an ambient level of organised crime throughout society. By how much would organised crime have to be lowered before it was acceptable to the DUP? Organised crime will never be eradicated, as it is endemic in all parts of society across the United Kingdom. What level would criminality have to reach before it became something that the police have to deal with rather than politicians?

Dr McCrea: There is a difference between organised crime and organised crime that is carried out by those who are connected to political groupings. They are totally different. The Government said that Sinn Féin and the IRA are two sides of the same coin — “inextricably linked” were their actual words. That is unacceptable in a democracy. Things will not change overnight, for criminality is endemic in certain parts of the republican movement and has been in their psyche for many years. They feel that it is good to rob the Government, to launder money, to take from society, not to pay taxes, and to take £245 million and not pay taxes on it to the Exchequer.

Paragraph 3.20 of the most recent IMC report states:

“PIRA continues to raise funds and we also believe that it looks to the long term exploitation of the proceeds of earlier crimes, for example, through the purchase of property or legitimate businesses. Some senior members are involved in money laundering and other crime. Money has become a key strategic asset. There has been some restructuring in the finance department, possibly in reflection of the changing circumstances. PIRA also seems to be using experts and specialists able to assist in the management of illegal assets.”

We cannot close our eyes to what would not be accepted in America or in any other society. The most recent IMC report cannot give a clean bill of health to the IRA because the truth is that its criminality runs deep. The IMC talks about what it knows to go on on the surface. This is a quote from the most recent IMC report:

“There are indications that some members, including some senior ones … are still involved in crime, including offences such as fuel laundering, money laundering, extortion, tax evasion and smuggling … We have no reason to amend our earlier view that money is a strategic asset and that the organisation will look to the long-term exploitation of discreetly laundered assets which were previously gained illegally.”

It cannot be suggested that that will change in a short time — the report states that criminality is actually done strategically. The members of the commission believe that the PIRA has been using experts and specialists to manage its illegal assets.

We must be satisfied that criminality is over. Those who are in Government cannot be associated in any shape or form with those — from whatever part of the community — who are living off criminal assets. For example, the £20 million from the Northern Bank robbery has never been found, and yet it was said that that money was supposed to be the Provos’ pension fund.

2.15 pm

A pension fund should not be based on criminality and £20 million bank robberies. There must be transparency and the DUP has to be convinced of that, as we cannot allow ourselves to move away from what the community thinks. The community must be convinced that criminality has been dealt with and is over for good. Paramilitarism and the total decommissioning of terrorist weapons must be concluded, because we cannot have a two-way process or ride both horses.

Mr McFarland: Chairman, can I ask William how he sees the issue of loyalist decommissioning being resolved? He has said that it must be resolved.

Dr McCrea: Decommissioning must be resolved in the same way as decommissioning from any grouping is resolved. We have not been uneven-handed as regards our demand for decommissioning. There is a famous quote that “murder is murder is murder” — it does not matter whether it is one side or the other. There is no place in civilised society and in a democratic society, which is the basis of a civilised society, for paramilitary groupings to threaten the stability of the state. Decommissioning must be dealt with effectively, and the community must be assured that it has been dealt with. Across Northern Ireland there are people who purport to belong to paramilitary groupings, and they live off the grief of others and act as dictators in estates throughout the community. That must be tackled and brought to a final conclusion.

Mr McNarry: William, if all other issues were resolved except loyalist decommissioning, would that keep you out of Government?

Dr McCrea: We made it abundantly clear in my statement. The DUP manifesto states that no one who is associated with paramilitarism or criminality will be in any Executive in Northern Ireland. There are groupings that are not totally democratic parties, and they will not be in Government. That is a challenge for those who are linked with those paramilitary groupings. Our manifesto is clear that no one who is associated with paramilitarism or criminality will be in any Executive. There is no equivocation there, and in a democratic society the community can equate with and applaud that.

Mr McNarry: I understand that, and there is no equivocation. However, the point that I am trying to grapple with is whether, if loyalists failed to decommission, that would prevent you from entering into government.

Dr McCrea: I said earlier, and Mr McNarry was not here, that tragically the line has been blurred. In many ways Sinn Féin has been allowed off the hook on this issue, because when the Ulster Unionists linked up with the PUP, which is the political face of the UVF, they completely blurred the clear lines that had been there for many years.

As far as the DUP is concerned, until now the Ulster Unionists did not have that link, so their participation in an Executive would not blur that line whatsoever. That, therefore, would not stop the establishment of an Executive if every other grouping were based on democratic lines alone. If all parties had renounced violence; supported the police; ensured that decommissioning had taken place; ensured a stable society that builds on the foundation of democracy alone; we could certainly move forward.

There is ground to move forward and to give us a stable Assembly. Then, no matter what forces come against us, we must, as a body, say that irrespective of whichever paramilitary group threatens, whether from one side of the community or the other, the security forces have the backing of that Executive to defeat terrorism. There can be no equivocation on that. They must back the security forces in ensuring that terrorism, from whatever source, is defeated. Because if we do not have that and people start saying, “Ah, well now I know those boys”, and the line that they are former associates or friends and they know their families comes into it, quite honestly democracy is being polluted.

Mr McNarry: If you would indulge me, Chairman, may I go back to the issue of criminality and stretch it widely? What would Dr McCrea’s take be if vigilantes spontaneously organised, or were organised by a political grouping, as in the past, and were doing so to combat everyday crime that affects us and to protect the vulnerable and the elderly? Given that there is a genesis and a history of this, it is important that we have an assessment regarding vigilantes and the action that they may enter into now.

Dr McCrea: First, that is a hypothetical situation, and I do not honestly believe that that is the remit of this Committee in scoping the issues. We cannot set up little groupings that take over different communities. That is a very dangerous road to go down. There is one police force, one group of law and order in this country, and that is the PSNI in the Province.

One cannot start allocating responsibility for the maintenance of law and order to any other grouping, however well meaning it may be when it starts. Unfortunately, in the past there were those who came in and turned sour what was then said to be reasonable and rational and was intended to be about looking after the local community, and they took over communities. We should not abdicate the authority from the one legitimate authority — the police force and the security forces in Northern Ireland — to maintain proper law and order and deal with crime. That is where we should leave the responsibility.

Mr Morrow: Mr Deputy Speaker, we need a ruling because we are going to run into trouble here, with Members coming in not having heard previous discussion and having no knowledge of it. Some of the questions that I have been asked have been asked and answered before. Unless a Member is fully up to date, I am doubtful that he should be allowed to cross-question and cross-examine. We are going to have a whole rehash of this with different people coming in and out at different intervals.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): It is limited and the additions are along the lines of creating a discussion more than anything.

Mr McFarland: Chairman, that would be a fair enough comment if in fact the entire delegation had changed, but I have just asked Mr McNarry to ask those questions. I could ask them if Mr Morrow wants, but we do not want to get silly about this.

Mr Morrow: I think that Mr McFarland should ask the questions. He has a better understanding of what has been said.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We are probably moving into a new situation now. Patsy McGlone is on next.

Mr McGlone: I have heard and listened to the concerns of the DUP. William McCrea said that, subject to matters around security and criminality being addressed, there is ground to move forward to a stable Assembly. I would like a wee bit more clarity on that insofar as he will be aware that there is a perception out there that the DUP is not interested in moving to agreement. In terms of either allaying or addressing that perception, may I ask William, in the interests of wider public confidence in the political process, to clarify: does the DUP object to an inclusive power-sharing Executive?

Dr McCrea: At the beginning and at the end of my statement I made it clear that the Democratic Unionist Party was a devolutionist party before some other parties sitting around this table. We have always been a devolutionist party, while others abandoned devolution, therefore we do believe that that is important.

However, I must say that it must be a pure democracy and not one that is definitely, clearly, openly polluted for everyone to see; polluted by paramilitary activity, by criminality and by failure to accept the forces of law and order in the defeat of crime. Therefore we are up for devolution. But make no mistake about it: we are not up for devolution at any price. Devolution at a price that destroys democracy is not for the people of Northern Ireland, and we shall certainly not be giving credence to it.

Mr McGlone: I hear exactly what you are saying William. So, subject to those issues being allayed or addressed, the answer is that you do not have any objections to it.

Dr McCrea: We have no objection to devolution.

Mr McGlone: Who specifically?

Dr McCrea: I am not going to pretend that I like the devolution that is being proposed by the Government. That would be a foolish statement, because I genuinely believe that no one would believe me if I did say that. I am certainly not here to try to pretend anything, give some false impression or put on some false face. What you see is what you get when I am making my submission or trying to address the issues that have been addressed to me.

Whilst it is not the devolution that I like, because I certainly believe that it is an unacceptable position to be told that there will be no Executive unless it has all the Members sitting round, with Sinn Féin in it. I do not believe that any other party in the United Kingdom, and it is certainly not the case in the South, would accept it. They have had their problems in the past as well, and they are still telling us that they would not have Sinn Féin in government. They are still telling us that to this day, not only the opposition parties but the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, who tells us what we have to do to get devolution here.

But, as far as we are concerned, we believe that we can have a devolved government, and we are up for a devolved government that is based solidly and solely upon democratic principles, and that no party and no one who is associated with paramilitarism or criminality will be in an Executive in Northern Ireland. That is our bottom line.

Mr Murphy: That neatly brings us on to my question that teases out a little bit about the position of the UUP Assembly Group (UUPAG), which is the title that they have adopted for themselves.

William McCrea said and repeated very firmly that no one who is associated with any of these issues and does not satisfy the DUP would be in government. I just wonder does the DUP make a distinction between for instance David Ervine being in government and another member of the UUP being in government. I asked this question the other day: is there a distinction in the DUP’s view between any individual member of the UUPAG being in government or does that apply only to some individual member whom the DUP considers to have such linkages?

William focused very much on ministerial accountability in his presentation, and he referred to Ministers in the previous Executive acting as little gods. Does he agree now that ministerial accountability or collective responsibility in the Executive would mean that no Minister could refuse to attend the Executive and that no Minister could refuse to represent the Executive on other institutions that are appropriate to their remit? The sort of behaviour that happened in the past would not be acceptable in the future.

2.30 pm

Dr McCrea: There is a basic necessity, and that is that the unionist community has no confidence in the Belfast Agreement. That is fact, not fiction. That issue has to be resolved. There has to be a resolution of the matter so that an agreement and the way in which we are governed not only benefits the nationalist community but the unionist community too.

At the end of my presentation I stated that devolution must be democratic and that it must work in the interests of unionists as well as nationalists. As far as the previous Executive was concerned, they did not have the backing of the majority of unionism — neither did the Belfast Agreement have the backing of the unionist community. As time has passed it has been totally divorced from the Belfast Agreement and therefore those changes are needed.

As far as accountability is concerned, the major fundamental issue is this: there has to be a mechanism by which Ministers are accountable, in the final analysis, to the Assembly. In Westminster, Ministers are accountable to Parliament, and Ministers recently found that to their cost whenever they refused to accept that accountability. In fact, many of them lost office because they tried to push through unacceptable positions and policies that made their position untenable. There has to be accountability for everyone, and if we were in government our Ministers would have to be accountable like every other Minister. We have never run away from accountability because we believe that it is an essential ingredient of moving forward. Therefore I have no problem whatever in making that clear.

I am making no further comment other than to say that our manifesto states:

“that no-one who is associated with paramilitarism or criminality will be in any Executive in Northern Ireland”.

That is the position of the DUP, and it is on that basis that I have been elected, and I am giving you clear understanding of that.

Mr Murphy: Now that we have the benefit of Hansard we can note that that is about the third time that that question has been fudged by the DUP in relation to the specifics — whether this applies specifically to David Ervine or to the UUPAG group as a whole.

I wish to pick up on the comments that Diane Dodds made on equality. I am interested in her and the DUP’s criteria for the allocation of funding on an equitable basis. She referred to festival funding in Belfast. In the overall public spend it is but a drop in the ocean; nonetheless, it is important to those communities to which it is given. She appeared to advocate that rather than be allocated on the basis of objective need, such funding should be allocated on the basis that if a nationalist area gets a certain amount of funding, then a unionist area should get an equal amount.

How does she see that that would follow through in relation to Government procurement and Invest Northern Ireland — when the big money is being spent, not just the thousands of pounds that are allocated to festival funding? For instance, if it spends £2 million in attracting businesses to East Belfast, should it spend £2 million attracting businesses to West Tyrone or to Newry and Armagh? Is the basis for equitable distribution of public funds that what goes to the unionist communities must also go to the nationalist communities, or vice versa? Is that the basis on which the DUP argues for equality or is it on the basis of objective need? It would be helpful to have that clarified.

William McCrea remarked this morning that there was no confidence within unionism in how decommissioning was handled in relation to how the IRA dealt with its weapons. Does he feel that the way in which the Loyalist Volunteer Force (LVF) dealt with its weaponry in the full glare of the media gave any confidence to the nationalist community? Does he suspect that that is the case?

To correct him: he claimed that it was insisted that demilitarisation be given the full glare of media coverage. Sinn Féin did not insist that the TV cameras accompanied the dismantlement of any army watchtowers. That was something that the British Government felt was beneficial to themselves. Perhaps he can make some helpful suggestion on this, but removing a 50-ft tall structure that is the size of a small village from a mountain top without somebody noticing is a very difficult proposition indeed. It certainly was not Sinn Féin’s request that such actions be captured on camera.

I would like to know whether he feels that the LVF’s very public method of dealing with its weapons gave any degree of confidence to the nationalist community or, indeed, to the unionist community.

Dr McCrea: First, I totally deny that there has been any fudge. In fact, I am delighted that there is a proper record, which will give a clear understanding of what we said, not what some with seemingly selective hearing are willing to believe that we said. The record will stand in its own right.

Secondly, as regards decommissioning, the truth of the matter is this: it is a fact — whether people want to accept it or not — that there is no confidence whatever in the manner in which decommissioning took place. In fact, we had different reports from different persons. Some suggested that all weapons were gone; others suggested that it was dated weapons; and others did not want to say — they wanted to take what they did or did not see to their grave.

As far as the community is concerned, it must be satisfied. There has to be verifiable decommissioning.

Therefore as regards the LVF, as far as the loyalist community is concerned, once you divide the weapons up and cut them into pieces, it certainly would be hard to put Humpty Dumpty together again. However, I am not suggesting that that way gives confidence to all the unionist community. The point that I will make is that the LVF will not be in government — that is one thing for sure — and it certainly will not be in any Executive.

There are those who, over the years — it is not something that has happened just recently — have had a history of association with, and who are inextricably linked to, terrorist groupings. Certainly there has to be confidence within the unionist community that decommissioning has been carried out in a verifiable way. I am sure that it is clearly known where these weapons are, and so there can still be visible and verifiable decommissioning. We do not even know how the weapons were decommissioned or how many of them were. In fact, I am told that had we known how few weapons were decommissioned the first time, it would have been a common joke within society. Even on this occasion, we are told by some of the witnesses that none of the up-to-date weapons were decommissioned. So there has to be confidence.

As regards equality, we believe that there must be confidence within the community. The community has identified what it believes to be issues. There is total inequality, and that has even been acknowledged by Europe, and it is now trying to get within the unionist communities to address that. When Europe accepts it, no one should close his eyes to the reality of funding here, not only with European funds, but with other funds as well. Those issues have to be seriously addressed.

Mrs D Dodds: I just want to make a quick addition to that. I quoted the example of the Belfast Festival fund because it is a very good example of inequality being institutionalised by Government. Prior to the embargo, a number of festival groups had applied for funding. As it happened, on that occasion all the groups were from nationalist communities in Belfast. What the Government did, by imposing a moratorium on the festival spend and on any other groups applying, was to actually institutionalise the inequality. They embedded the inequality further.

What I am saying is that equality is for everyone. Just because you do not like someone does not mean that they do not have the right to have equality and be treated in an equitable manner within our society. It is for everyone. That is the point that I was making. What had happened on that occasion was that the Government Department in question had actually managed to institutionalise the inequality by saying that the groups that had applied would continue to be funded and that nobody else need apply while we discussed and debated a new festival policy among ourselves. That that took us two or three years to do was neither here nor there.

Now we have more openness and transparency and anyone can apply. Whatever way it is handed out, it is handed out. I do not even have the figures on that with me today.

Mr Murphy: Just to finish with a couple of observations. First, in relation to clarifying the issue, William still has not clarified whether, if everything else in relation to Sinn Féin and everyone else was satisfied in the morning and the UUPAG as currently constituted was ready to go into government, that would be acceptable to the DUP as a group, or if its sole objection in relation to that would be David Ervine. He has not clarified that.

Also, can I make the point that when he talks about the verification of the destruction of arms, Ulster Resistance weapons are still out there somewhere. I am not sure where they are, and I am not sure whether people that William knows are sure where they are. That is an issue that has yet to be dealt with.

Finally, I thank Diane for her answer but it was me, Conor Murphy of Sinn Féin, who asked the question. She chose to give her answer to the SDLP group, and I am sure that it has an interest in it, but it would be helpful if we could have a bit of respect for each other and address each other when we ask questions.

Dr Farren: I hope it is not too soon to say that while I am pleased to hear what I am hearing — and I am not in agreement with everything that I hear — at least we are moving into some kind of more open engagement that is helping to clarify in some respects.

My main question is essentially the same one with which I began this morning’s questioning of the Alliance Party. If we are to make progress, we need to distinguish between those issues that are essential to restoration and other issues which, however desirable it might be to arrive at a resolution of whatever the problems are, are not essential. Obviously if we could identify, clarify and resolve everything before 24 November that would be great, but it seems to me that our agenda could be such that the burden would be too heavy for us in whatever format we agree they should be addressed in order to reach that resolution.

I seek some clarification because I find, throughout the document that the DUP has submitted, the phrase “must be resolved” or “needs to be addressed prior to restoration to devolution” — that second one is in relation to a number of issues under the heading of policing and criminal justice. It begins with, for example, the “discriminatory fifty-fifty recruitment policy”, and the paragraph finishes by saying that “these issues need to be addressed prior to the restoration of devolution”. Is the DUP saying that that is an essential issue to be addressed?

On the parades issue: “it is vital that this issue is addressed now before devolution is restored.” On the question of equality and human rights, I am interested in the kind of points that have been made. There is not such a strong demand made, but the DUP says that “it is critical that these issues be addressed as a matter of urgency to allow the necessary political progress to be made”, which could be interpreted as meaning they have to be resolved before restoration.

2.45 pm

With respect to the reference under “accountability of institutions to the comprehensive agreement”, it seems to me that the DUP has fully accepted what the comprehensive agreement contains. Certainly, we have very strong reservations, to the point where we reject the comprehensive agreement.

While there were discussions, as I said this morning, between the parties on the review matters — which to some extent you might say are addressed within the comprehensive agreement — in the final analysis, in the final run up to the comprehensive agreement, parties were excluded. These matters deal with the manner in which we should relate to each other within the new institutions, yet the DUP seems to be saying that any resolution to the problems of how we relate within the institutions should only be addressed in negotiation with the British Government.

The British Government are not going to be present in the Executive. The British Government are not going to be present in the North/South Ministerial Council. They may be present in the east-west institution but the other institutions require some engagement with us, and I am certainly not going to abdicate to the British Government, or indeed to the Irish Government, matters that are essentially to do with the relationships between the parties around this table.

So, I need to get some clarification — and I think, out of this initial round of discussions and engagement on the papers we have presented, we all do — and some sense of the essential issues to be addressed; how we are going to address them; and the issues on which we might make some progress, even to the point of resolution, but which are not absolutely essential in order to enable restoration to take place on 24 November. That is a question that I will come back to in all of the discussions here until we get some kind of way forward. It is only by answering that key question that we can really move in some meaningful way to involve the Assembly.

Although the DUP says that matters have to be resolved on the Floor of the Assembly, at the moment all that we could get would be some indication as to what Members of the Assembly think the priorities are for this Committee, and while that might be helpful, it would almost bring us back to the point where we are at the moment. We would need to sift through what the Assembly might say in such a debate and sort out the essentials from the non-essentials — and by non-essentials I do not mean issues that do not require to be addressed.

I beg your pardon for that lengthy question, but my question is about the essentials and non-essentials.

Dr McCrea: Well, I have said from the word go that my colleagues and I see that this Committee is not for negotiations. We are here to scope the issues. When I asked what the word “scope” meant, an NIO dictionary expert said that it meant “identify the issues”.

There is a danger in having a twin-track approach. It is dangerous to say that if all this was resolved then everything could possibly fall into line, because there are issues in all of these things that are cardinal and important and have got to be resolved.

There are major issues concerning stability, such as the undermining of it by terrorist activity and criminality and all the rest of it. On the other hand, there is instability by not having a system of government that will not be stable in its own right. Therefore, I do not think that the twin track approach will necessarily resolve the situation.

There are issues that only those parties that are associated with terrorist organisations can resolve. They must come up to the democratic mark. That is a fact. And, although Seán rightly says that parties felt that they were left out of substantive negotiations on a comprehensive agreement; that was not by our request.

To the best of my knowledge, at no time have we ever refused to talk to the SDLP and put views on what was going on. We have not taken that stance, because we accept its democratic bona fides and credentials. Therefore there was no desire that the SDLP or any other party that we believed was simply and directly a democratic party should have been left out of that loop. I was at Leeds Castle, and to the best of my knowledge, my colleague, as Chair of the party, and I, as Vice-Chair, did not know of that being done.

How the Government deal with parties is a different thing. For example, the Ulster Unionist paper that was put in front of us really said that it does not have to deal with these issues; there was no need for them. You cannot have it both ways. Let me read exactly what it says.

Dr Farren: Can I make an intervention? I hope the “you” did not refer to the SDLP.

Dr McCrea: No, it referred to the Ulster Unionists. They stated:

“There is a political reality that all of us would do well to bear in mind. With the threat of repartition from the RPA, the potential destruction of our education system, extra taxation . . . This can only happen if there is a deal between Unionism and Nationalism.”

They go on:

“The DUP now represent the majority in unionism and, whether they like it or not, the majority of nationalism is represented by Sinn Féin. Thus, the deal needs to be done between the DUP and Sinn Féin . . . It would be useful for other parties if the DUP and Sinn Féin could identify their terms for a deal.”

So, that says that we step out of the game here, but you cannot – there are parties objecting because they were left out of the comprehensive agreement; on the other hand they say they should be out of it.

I know that that is not the SDLP position. All I say is that that was the position of some of the other parties.

We certainly did not leave any of those parties out with regard to the comprehensive agreement, and we did not believe that they should be left out. In my opinion, the Ulster Unionists, the SDLP, the Alliance Party, were essential ingredients in what should have been a comprehensive agreement.

However, as regards devolution and dealing with issues, we deal on negotiations with our Government. That happens to be the British Government, and they can tell us here what to do or what not to do. Therefore, if they are so much in control, we should be the people to deal with. They are the people we want to negotiate with.

And while there are those parties that have a clear record of being inextricably linked to a terrorist organisation we do not accept their democratic credentials. We have said that ad nauseam. This is not something new, said by me or by some folk representing the DUP. Right from the top of our party, our leadership has said that over and over again, and I am not in a position in this Committee — neither do I request it — to negotiate.

Dr Farren: That response still leaves the key question to which I am trying to get an answer, unanswered. I cannot see us making headway if we have to address everything with the same level of urgency. In a sense what is being suggested by the DUP is that equality issues — and they are important — are as important as the many other issues with regard to policing, to assurances and with respect to ending paramilitarism and criminality, and so on. We have to face up to this question in some form or other.

I totally reject the suggestion that we should be excluded or that we ever attempted to exclude ourselves. We certainly did not, and we made our representations very clear in the strongest possible way that I can recollect us ever doing, before the two Prime Ministers at Leeds Castle, about the manner in which discussions and negotiations were being conducted. I find it disappointing that the DUP still prefers to engage in a direct channel with the British Government. The British Government have a role to play, but they, as I said previously, will not be part of the Executive or part of the North/South Ministerial Council. It is the parties round here that will constitute those institutions and that have to be dealt with. Until we have some resolution to the central question, I do not see us making an awful lot more progress, interesting and useful as the exchanges we are engaging in here are.

I have one or two specific questions. One relates to the whole question of partnership within Government. Just as the DUP makes the case that confidence has to be built within the unionist community as to the democratic credentials, as it puts it, of parties that would be part of any Executive, so too is there an obligation on the DUP to build confidence within the nationalist community that it would operate within the spirit of partnership. When I look around for examples, and I do not have to look very far, given the constituency that I represent, of how DUP representatives conduct themselves with respect to relationships with the nationalist community, both in district councils and, indeed, with the wider nationalist community, when it comes to matters related to the issue that Diane raised — the allocation of grants to various organisations located within the nationalist community — I do not find always a great deal of reassurance on this particular issue. While it has not been referred to specifically in the DUP’s submission, I just ask if the DUP accepts that there is an obligation with respect to confidence building in this regard as far as the nationalist community is concerned.

Dr McCrea: First of all, I did not want to give the impression when I used the illustration of the Ulster Unionists that I equated that with the stance that the SDLP took during the Leeds Castle party talks. If I gave the impression that you personally absented yourselves or agreed to not being part of those intensive negotiations and the compre­hensive agreement, I certainly did not want to do so.

The clarification that Mr Farren has already given is on the record, and I concur with that. They did not absent themselves or request to be absented from the detailed discussions.

However, all I did was point out that there were others who say today that they should have been part of it yet take a completely different stance in these papers. I also said that, to the best of my memory, we sought several meetings with the SDLP during the Leeds Castle talks and we found them helpful. That does not mean that we always agreed, but at least we accepted that we trust each other’s credentials as regards informing each other of where we were coming from.

With regard to partnership in Government, Seán Farren mentioned the vexed situation in district councils. It would be best for the SDLP and everybody else if they sometimes stayed away from that issue. I shall give you a bit of history. In 1973, I went into local government, so I am in my thirty-fourth year there. Since 1981 the DUP has been the leading unionist party in Magherafelt District Council. For most of that time, the SDLP was the leading nationalist party. From 1981 to 2002 — 21 years — the DUP was denied chairmanship of that council. For most of that time, we were also denied the vice-chairmanship of the council. Yet, we were the leading unionist party, with at least double the votes of the next biggest unionist party. I was the subject of that discrimination for all those years, so it would not necessarily be the best thing to throw what is happening in North Antrim in my face.

At the same time, there was not a great history of DUP chairmanship or vice-chairmanship in Down District Council. It would be interesting to know when over the past 20 years DUP members became chairman or vice-chairman in that council.

3.00 pm

Therefore one should not start to throw these things around as regards those who are genuine in partnership. We had another example of it last night in Magherafelt’s annual meeting, which was supposed to be conducted under d’Hondt. Sinn Féin took the position of chairman. As last year, the vice-chairmanship was to be for the DUP because it was the leading unionist party. However, what did we find? Sinn Féin instead made a call upon an Ulster Unionist — I am led to believe made a visit and a contact certainly — offering a particular Ulster Unionist the seat. Sinn Féin also clearly stated that if that Ulster Unionist did not take the seat, the SDLP would get it and that no unionist would be either chairman or vice-chairman.

It is amazing how underbelly dealings and the truth come out. The truth is that Sinn Féin proposed the Ulster Unionist for the chairmanship, he turned it down, and the SDLP took the seat. The SDLP said that it was sad that the positions were not cross community. My response was that if it was so sad about that, all it had to do was refuse the position and the seat would have automatically come to us. However, he did not refuse it.

Therefore when it comes to lectures about all of this, let us have none to those who have suffered discrimination in local government for over 20 years. I am probably the longest-serving district councillor around this table today, so I know for how long that discrimination has gone on. If we are talking about real partnership, it is important that other parties that try to undermine and pick out certain areas know that their cupboard is clean before they start pointing the finger about partnership in Government.

Dr Farren: I suppose I should have warned myself about making the point, because the last thing that I wanted to invite was a rehearsal of all the wrongs that have been enacted on whatever side in our district councils. All I was doing was saying that on both sides, we need reassurances — that was the main point, and it was for the future.

It is so easy, of course, to jump immediately and point to the mote in the other person’s eye. I take credit on the SDLP’s behalf for promoting the whole concept and practice of partnership — maybe not always with the best results, but nonetheless it was characteristic of our attempts to work local government in a new spirit.

However, I have not heard the reassurances that I sought. Perhaps the DUP would reflect on that and take on board the need to provide those. I cannot speak for anybody else, but if we are to re-create our institutions, they have to be characterised by a working relationship that reflects a concept of partnership in a positive rather than an acrimonious sense.

There are one or two other points that I would like to make. The first is on what was said about our contacts with the DUP. I do recall being at one of the late-night meetings at Leeds Castle, where we presented a lengthy series of recommendations to the DUP in respect of matters under the review of the operation of the Good Friday Agreement. To the best of my knowledge the DUP has not yet come back to us on those submissions, and I would be anxious to hear about that. Maybe because it endorsed the comprehensive agreement it does not want to come back to us on those issues, but we certainly do not accept the comprehensive agreement as an appropriate working document here.

I have another question, related to the confidence that the DUP says the Unionist community needs with respect to paramilitarism and all of that. Who, in the view of the DUP, are the arbiters in terms of providing that confidence, at least in a factual sense, to the Unionist community? Is the DUP going to second-guess what is reported by such bodies as the Independent Monitoring Commission, or indeed, the decommissioning body? Those agencies were set up under Government authority with the brief to carry out various tasks in respect of decommissioning and the ending of paramilitarism and criminality. Yet the progress that is made is at best grudgingly acknowledged and is never enough. My question is a simple one — when is enough enough, and who are to be the arbiters of enough?

Over the next few months we are going to be faced with a number of reports from the IMC in particular. Are these not going to be enough? If it is clear from what they report that certain facts exist on the ground, then that will be there for all to see. However, I am very concerned at the response that the DUP has almost programmed itself into making towards these reports — that enough is never enough.

Dr McCrea: As regards the councils, we are looking to the future. In actual fact, the Magherafelt situation was last night, and that was as close to the future as you could possibly get — that was done at 6.30 pm.

I am not going back into history. I am certainly not going back to some of the previous situations, but I would ask the Member to please take heart and remember that the unionist people did put our friend in Larne in as mayor. Do take heart from some of the positive movements forward and also in Belfast. Larne is a situation where there is a large unionist population, so, as I said in the Business Committee when there were parties talking about frustrations, we are coming with a positive attitude — we are positive about what we are doing — though that may not be looked upon as positive by others. We know exactly what we are doing, and we know exactly where we are going, so we are positive. That may be looked upon as negative by nationalism.

Dr Farren: I would certainly regard Larne as a positive move.

Dr McCrea: It was a positive move.

Mr Morrow: Castlereagh.

Dr McCrea: Castlereagh as well. Let us therefore please bring this positivity into this whole situation rather than try to take away from it. You may actually be trying to bite the very hand that is trying to feed you. We are trying to work together, but we get no thanks for it. It is just thrown back in our faces. In actual fact the words I am going to use are: when is enough enough? That is what you said a moment ago: “When is enough enough?” It seems to me that there is no satisfying your needs or sometimes your greeds. It works both ways, you know. I was posed the question: “When is enough enough?” We have asked the question about policing: when is enough enough? It was not enough to have fifty-fifty with regard to policing: there had to be discrimination against the unionist community.

When is enough enough? This hand always seems to be out; it is a one-way process. Well, the unionist community has seen one thing after another being handed away by the demands of, especially, violent republicanism, and we are fed up with it. In actual fact the unionist community is saying: “Enough is enough. We are not willing to accept the eroding away of every aspect of our Britishness and democratic rights in this society.” I am glad you asked: “When is enough enough?” I will just ask you the same.

With regard to who: in the final analysis it is the people, the general public, who will decide. We were threatened so many times by: “Let us have an election, and we will see that the DUP does not have the support of the people.” We are happy to test it at any time with the people. I do believe that the general public will be the arbiters, and we will be asking our community, the unionist community, just exactly whether they are satisfied. We will take account of the statements of the police. It is important to hear what the police have got to say. It is important to hear what the Army has to say and the security forces and services. It is important to hear what the IMC has got to say.

Concerning the decommissioning body, if ever there was an expensive exercise, it certainly was that. It is costing millions of pounds. On one of the occasions it was very clear that Gen de Chastelain was totally embarrassed by what he was asked to do — to come out and try to tell us that we had real, genuine decommissioning when in actual fact he was totally embarrassed and so were the Government at the end of the day. After the recent round of it, we found out that there was not one barrack-buster in any of the decommissioning, yet that was certainly one tool of terrorism that they had, not only to murder people within the barracks but also to destroy and demolish the security bases. We found out that not one — not one — was actually in this. So we do need to get an inventory, and we do need to hear exactly what is happening. In the final analysis, we believe that our voters, as well as others, will decide the issue.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Margaret Ritchie is next. Perhaps we could begin to wind up because we have spent two hours on the DUP submission, and we need to move on to the next one.

Ms Ritchie: I wish to provide clarification, first of all, on Mr McCrea’s comments about Down District Council, of which I have been a member for 21 years. I must say that, since 1973, the SDLP has pioneered and participated in a power-sharing arrangement between the two main traditions.

Cognisant of and recognising the fact that minority parties were not represented on the statutory committees, we ensured, on an incremental basis, that power sharing was built in from the mid-80s onwards. The DUP has benefited from that. In fact, the SDLP ensured that the DUP and Sinn Féin obtained positions on the statutory committees, and I know that my colleagues and I ensured that.

A very telling comment is that your colleague, who chairs this Committee on occasions, acknowledged the power-sharing arrangements that were pioneered by the SDLP in Down, and he also acknowledged our generosity. I, as a member of Down District Council, would like to put that on the record because this issue is raised on various occasions by the DUP in another House.

3.15 pm

As late as last year, during the chairmanship of my colleague in Down, we also ensured that the DUP obtained recognition in that it was given responsibility in attending functions and, in fact, represented the chair of the council in London at several meetings to do with Trafalgar. To record the words of the Member’s colleague in Down, we made his day by letting him go.

Mr Morrow: Was that Mr Wells?

Ms Ritchie: Mr Wells was the one who acknowledged that we were generous in Down towards the DUP, and he acknowledged that publicly in the council chamber. That was also acknowledged by the UUP on many occasions. I would like to put that issue to bed.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Could we move away from local government?

Mr Morrow: Mr Deputy Speaker, could I just ask one question on that? I know that Margaret gave me the date, but I have missed it. Could she give me the date when the DUP was in the chair in Down?

Ms Ritchie: The DUP has not been in the chair, but it will be in the chair. I have to explain this, Mr Deputy Speaker. We extended full d’Hondt last year, and the DUP group leader in Down attended the leaders’ meeting, which was convened by the clerk of the council, and the DUP members agreed that they would get the vice-chair, according to the proportionality arrangements under d’Hondt, in the final year of this current mandate.

Mr Morrow: There was no opportunity during the past 30 years to do it; I accept that.

Ms Ritchie: I am not saying that. I am saying that you got your proportionality according to membership, which varied from two to three over the last 34 years, out of a council of 23. I think that we have been fair and generous when I compare that to arrangements in other areas, whilst acknowledging that there has been movement this year to my colleagues in other councils.

I shall move on to North/South relations. I note that the DUP has said in its paper:

“For unionists to give such support, it is necessary to ensure that such relations are based on what is in the practical interests of the people of Northern Ireland.”

I am mindful of what the deputy leader of the DUP stated to the Small Firms Association in 2004 — that he could see areas where North/South co-operation could make sense. I am also mindful of what the Member of Parliament for Lagan Valley said on Radio Ulster some months ago about the benefits and the great construction work that was done on the Belfast-Dublin corridor, and the great expedition of that work, and the economic benefits that it would bring to the North of Ireland.

Could I ask the DUP whether it could specify and name the areas where North/South co-operation could make sense, and whether it would be willing to sign up to those and, I suppose, in the final analysis, to the North/South Ministerial Council?

Dr McCrea: I will not go down the road of the position of south Down. To the best of my knowledge, however, neither the chairman nor the vice-chairman — and I have been in politics for 34 years — of Down District Council has come from the DUP. That is a matter for scrutiny. All the protestations are a wee bit —[Interruption.]

We are looking forward to progress in that field in several councils. Let us move in that direction.

As for the North/South bodies, I wholeheartedly concur with my deputy leader that there are areas in which it would make sense to have co-operation — that is what neighbours do. However, I will not accept interference in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland; that is what neighbours do not do. In the past, there has been interference in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland. It is a wee bit of a cheek for a foreign Prime Minister to tell us what Government we can or cannot have in our own country — this is a part of the United Kingdom.

There are areas for co-operation; that is what North/South bodies are for, but those bodies must be answerable. As we have stated in our paper, for relations to be effective, accountable and to prosper, it is necessary that they receive support across the community. There is discrimination against the unionist population in the make-up of the North/South bodies, and there is discrimination in the religious makeup of the North/South bodies. North/South co-operation must be on a solid basis: there must be no discrimination and the traffic must not be all one-way. I believe in co-operation. It makes sense, for example, to have co-operation in agriculture, transport and electricity, and co-operation on those matters has been going on for years.

The North/South bodies should not exist to threaten somebody’s identity; they should exist for the furtherance of good government for the people of Northern Ireland and of the Irish Republic. That is what good neighbourliness is all about. Make no mistake about it, however: I will sign up to nothing until we see what the package is. There are major parts of the package to which we could not agree. We will not sign up to the extension of North/South bodies to take over Executive roles or to interfere in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland.

Mrs D Dodds: I agree with the point that William McCrea made about respecting the position of Northern Ireland and accepting that the majority of people here have clearly stated that Northern Ireland is British and that they want to retain that identity.

For quite some time, I have been chasing bits and pieces of information from Tourism Ireland. It is a very mystic body — perhaps that is because it is a Celtic creation — to grapple and to come to terms with. Recently, I managed to get a hold of a videotape of the ‘Narnia’ advertisement that was played in cinemas throughout America and the rest of the world. Not once in the advertisement — and I saw the film ‘The Chronicles of Narnia’ with my daughter in London — were the words “Northern Ireland” said.

That is what I mean about accepting the reality of identity and the fact that we need to accept and respect that and move on. Tourism Ireland states that its remit is to promote the island of Ireland; therefore, there were pictures of east Belfast — “somewhere in the island of Ireland”, to quote from the video; the picture of the Giant’s Causeway was “somewhere in the island of Ireland”. North/South bodies must get back to the fact that this is Northern Ireland, and they must respect that identity. Tourism Ireland is one such body; although the body has the expertise to do the promotional and marketing work, it must also respect the identity of the country and the people who live here. That is just one example of where North/South bodies need to be pulled back.

May I give you another example? No right exists to see the minutes of the meetings of the North/South bodies. Anybody can see minutes of meetings under the Freedom of Information Act 2002; they are published quite openly on the Internet. When I asked why these bodies did not publish minutes of their meetings, it was confirmed to me that no right exists. We need to reach a position where there is not only a respect for identity but transparency about what happens in North/South bodies. Ultimately, those bodies, and the Ministers who attend their meetings, must be accountable to the Assembly.

Ms Ritchie: At a recent conference on an all-Ireland infrastructure matter in Dundalk that Mr Farren and I, among others, attended, many attendees from Northern Ireland — or the North of Ireland — represented unionist businesses. Those attendees quite clearly demonstrated not only to us but to the wider conference that immense benefits could be gained by wider North/South co-operation and by taking the North/South Ministerial Council out of care and maintenance. They were anxious to do that so that both Governments could pursue collaborative strategies for the economic, social and practical benefit of the people throughout the island. Will Mr McCrea give further specifics about co-operation in agriculture and transportation?

Dr McCrea: I can understand the difficulty that some people have with this issue. I can also understand why some of the North/South bodies have a difficulty. We know that some people and politicians in Northern Ireland have an awful fear of saying the word “Northern”. They just cannot say the word. It would actually burn their tongues if they said “Northern Ireland”; it is the “North of Ireland”. They seem to not understand that this is a different identity: Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom; it is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I respect the identity of the people of the Irish Republic. I respect their right to have their own Government and their way of life. I hold no ill will whatsoever towards those people, towards their Government or towards the policies that they wish to follow. However, I ask that that respect be reciprocated. I have said in the past, and I say it one more time, that I do not believe that good neighbours interfere in each other’s internal affairs. Good neighbours work for the benefit of each other; they do not to try to overturn politically or to remove one neighbour from his territory to that person’s detriment.

As regards the businesses, it really is rather alarming, because I did not know that any of the businesses that went down to the Irish Republic did so as unionists or nationalists. I would have thought that businesses tried to keep out of that field and went down as business personnel to see how they might encourage further business, even if that meant encouraging business away from the Irish Republic and bringing the jobs to Northern Ireland. That is healthy good business life, but it is a strange idea that they should go down and be noted as unionist businesses. That is a new one for me.

3.30 pm

Dr Farren: There were several useful points made there with respect to the operation of North/South bodies. If what has been said is that we should have more transparency and more accountability, there is no difficulty as far as the SDLP is concerned in exploring how that might be achieved.

With respect to how we operated in the short period in which we were running the North/South bodies, all of the Ministers who attended meetings of those bodies came and gave a full report to the Assembly and were subject to questioning by Members of the Assembly. We can learn from the experience — good, bad or indifferent — with respect to improving the operation of those bodies and identifying where more co-operation might be achieved. Regarding operational matters, I do not see any significant difficulty in trying to address the concerns that have been raised about transparency, accountability, efficiency and so on.

Dr McCrea: So that there is no ambiguity in the situation, I am speaking about those bodies that are clearly working for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic — not furthering a political agenda. We will not be part of anything that smacks of a political agenda to take away Northern Ireland from its rightful position within the United Kingdom.

I did sit in the Assembly when the Ministers came back, and I remind you that we could not change one iota: not one dot; not one comma; not one stroke on the t of what the Minister had done could be changed. Why? Because they were unaccountable. Ministers, whoever they may be, should be going there for the benefit of Northern Ireland plc to ensure that Northern Ireland continues to prosper and live as a good neighbour with the Irish Republic. However, those who go with a political agenda must be brought to book and to account by the Assembly, and they must be answerable. This is an accountability issue.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Members, I am in your hands time-wise, but please keep your questions short.

Mr M McGuinness: First, I must agree with Séan Farren. He and I are probably the only people in this room who attended North/South Ministerial Council meetings, and those were undoubtedly to the benefit of people of the entire island. There could not have been more transparency in what we were trying to do. After each meeting we reported and allowed ourselves to be questioned by the Assembly, and in the debates and question-and-answer sessions that I was involved in, there was very little contention, even from the DUP, notwithstanding their overall position in terms of the institutions at that time.

One of the great sadnesses for me as Minister for Education was that we agreed to establish between North and South a centre of excellence for the education of children with autism at Middletown. That was well over four years ago, and the project still has not seen the light of day. The only people to suffer from that are children from our entire community, be they represented by the DUP, SDLP, UUP, Alliance or Sinn Féin. That was my interest as Minister: to provide within the resources available to us on the island the best possible education system. People sometimes flag up concerns that are not really substantial.

I would like to ask a couple of questions about the contribution made by the DUP. On a number of occasions William McCrea has talked about “pure democracy” and “the waterline of democracy”. There is a very clear message from the British Prime Minister and the Taoiseach that these institutions should be up this year. It is obvious that every other party — the Ulster Unionists, the Alliance Party, the SDLP and ourselves, other smaller parties in the Assembly, the two Governments, and indeed the White House — want to see these institutions up. It really comes down to whether the waterline of democracy is beyond the reach of Sinn Féin as far as the DUP is concerned. I would like an explanation of what the “waterline of democracy” actually means — is that a different type of democracy from that being asked for by the Taoiseach, the British Prime Minister, the Ulster Unionist Party and the other parties here?

On a number of occasions William McCrea has said that the Unionist community has no confidence in the Belfast Agreement and that there have to be changes. I think it would do the Committee a service if he would tell us what those changes need to be. In his last contribution he talked about “major parts of this package” that would have to be changed. Given that we are in this fairly unusual situation where we have a Preparation for Government Committee but one of the parties on the Committee is saying that it is going to negotiate only with the British Government, it would be very useful from an information point of view if he would tell the rest of the Committee what these major changes are that the DUP is seeking.

I also want to put on the record something that I raised this morning that is pertinent to the DUP’s position on who is entitled to be in an Executive and who is not, vis-à-vis this whole issue of paramilitarism. Reg Empey made what I thought was a very courageous statement some weeks ago on the issue of unionist leaders using unionist paramilitaries — and we all know that we are not talking about the Girl Guides or the Brownies. I went on ‘Inside Politics’ after that and referred to what he had said, and I referred to it again this morning. Never on any occasion since Reg Empey said that has any member of the DUP, to my knowledge, contradicted him — and it might come after I say this, and in all probability will do, but I will still be interested to hear the DUP’s response. Not once has any member of the DUP who has done any interview contradicted Reg Empey. That raises very serious questions about the issue that Reg Empey courageously identified some weeks ago.

Essentially that is it. I would be very pleased if we could have an answer to those two questions.

Dr McCrea: I want to make a couple of comments. As regards the North/South bodies, we have made it abundantly clear that practical co-operation is of vital importance. What we certainly do question is the value of the overly bureaucratic bodies that are part of the North/South system that now stands. We do not support the bodies that were set up by the Belfast Agreement. We believe that if there were an Executive and a Government here, they should have the freedom to set up their own bodies if they so wished and believed it essential for the development of good neighbourly relationships between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic.

There is no need whatsoever for a bureaucratic system to be set up. Quite often it wasted public finances that could have been spent on serious issues, such as autism, that I personally take an interest in as well. I have a keen interest in that. If we had some of that wasted money, and if we had the £240 million that is not paid to the Exchequer because of the extortion rackets and criminality that are going on, that would certainly aid a number of those people who are suffering.

It ill becomes anybody to say that they have a passion for those things; if they had, they would also have a passion to stop the problems that hinder progress in this community.

Our document also points out that the primacy of relationships is between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. The east-west relationships have not been utilised to maximum advantage. There is great potential for developing those relationships, and I am delighted that Scotland desires to aid us in that respect. The National Assembly for Wales is also interested in how such relationships might be developed. It would be a natural home. England and the United Kingdom as a whole is a very large market with which we could work to develop relationships. That is vital.

I will not, as I said before, negotiate in this Committee. We will open negotiations with the Government, and other parties can do the same. As in the past, we have no desire to fail to bring other democratic parties on board and to negotiate with them. There is, however, a waterline for the vast majority of the unionist population as regards Sinn Féin. We have heard claims today about what the British Government and the Irish Government have said. Remember that when the British Government were asked whether they would have Sinn Féin in Government under the present terms, they did not bounce up and down to do it. The Irish Government were asked whether they would accept Sinn Féin as partners in Government. The answer was no. I asked the American Government whether they would bring in groups that were inextricably linked to terrorist organisations, and they said no. Of course, they also said that although they would not do it, they would make us do it. Democracy should not be soiled in that way. Therefore negotiations about the changes that we would make to the Belfast Agreement will not be conducted in this Committee — this is not a negotiating Committee.

I appreciate that Reg Empey may want, because of recent difficulties, to bare his soul. He may feel that he has something to confess. That is for him to decide. I am sure that when the Ulster Unionists present their paper, they will be asked that question. We need to find out, from his party’s representatives on the Committee, what Reg Empey wants to say. I am not here to answer for Reg Empey; I may be answerable for many things, but another political party’s presentation to this Committee is not one of them.

That is where we stand.

Mr M McGuinness: The DUP needs to understand that as the 24 November deadline approaches — and it will come very quickly — it will find itself increasingly at odds with both the British Prime Minister and the Taoiseach and probably with the full weight of international opinion, led by the White House, on the issue of going into Government. As a representative of a party directly affected by this — along with two parties here, apart from the DUP, that are entitled to positions in the Executive — I would like a straight answer to the question of whether the DUP envisages, in the course of the work that we are involved in, being in Government with Sinn Féin under any circumstances whatsoever.

Dr McCrea: We have heard the threats and so forth from the Governments and others, especially Sinn Féin, about 24 November. We have made it abundantly clear that we want devolved Government, but if those who have the power to remove the obstacles do not do so, we cannot and will not accept any blame for those who impede our path to progress.

For example, we want debates in the House to which we were elected. One party is unwilling to do that. We are willing to deal with issues such as water rates and the RPA and put those to the Government. That is all that we can do. Nevertheless, one party stands alone; it stood on its own last week when we tried to get an interim report at least discussed in the Assembly. That party ran away from that because it does not want to be tested by or exposed to public debate that would show that it is unwilling to face the real issues at the heart of the whole problem.

3.45 pm

For those who are there to face it, the truth is that 24 November will come and go. However, it is in the hands of those who can remove the impediments to do so. They can come up to the democratic mark — the waterline — and prove to the public that they have renounced the path of violence, turned their backs on paramilitaries and condemn their actions, and support the security forces in defeating anyone who threatens, whether they be the Real IRA, the Continuity IRA or some loyalist organisation. They will actively support the security forces in ensuring that any threat to the democracy and stability of Northern Ireland will be supported by the Executive and the Assembly. That is not in our hands; it is in the hands of others. Those who put the impediments there had better come up to the mark and remove them.

With regards being at odds with the Westminster Government, we do not want to be at odds with anyone. However, I remind members that there is one group with whom we will not be at odds and from whom we will not walk away: the people who elected us. We believe that the ballot box has supremacy in Northern Ireland. We believe in the authority of that ballot box, and we keep faith with the people who elected us on the seven principles that we outlined in the past. We were the only party that came up front and put down the test and the line for ourselves. We were willing to do that and to stand over it.

It is not true that we walk away from others. Although others have been elected to the House of Commons and do not sit, I do attend, and I know of no party, including that of the Government, that believes that a stable Government is possible unless criminality, paramilitarism, decommissioning and such issues have been dealt with.

The Government may say different things to others, but I assure you that, even when some of the on-the-runs legislation was being debated in the House of Commons at the behest of Sinn Féin, the Secretary of State, who laid the Bill, did not have even two MPs to back him up. They all cleared like snow off a ditch. He had no backing whatever on the on-the-runs issue. There was a unity in the House. I was elected to the House in 1983, and I cannot remember such unity there. Every opposition party stood, man and woman, and were counted with many in the Government. On leaving the Lobbies, many in the Government apologised, because they had been Whipped into the voting lobbies to vote for their own legislation.

Let us be frank. We are not at odds with the thrust of democratic principles. We stand on the basic principles of democracy — the rock foundation of democracy — and I assure you that you will not sink if you stand on solid rock; you will sink only if you stand on sinking sand. Our principles are certainly not sinking sand.

Mr M McGuinness: Notwithstanding your total misrepresentation of the position of both the British Government and the Irish Government vis-à-vis Sinn Féin’s suitability to be in government, is it fair to say that under certain conditions the DUP is prepared, and is willing, to go into Government with Sinn Féin?

Dr McCrea: We are making it clear —

Mr M McGuinness: Could we get a yes or no answer to that question?

Dr McCrea: With the greatest respect no one is going to tell me what to say. Who do they think they are that they are telling you what you are or are not going to say? I will be able to answer as far as we are concerned. No one who is associated with paramilitarism and criminality will be in any Executive in Northern Ireland. If it is that we are at odds with the Irish Government, could I find out on what date — because maybe I missed it — did Bertie Ahern decide to go into Government and believe that Sinn Féin was a willing partner for Government in the Irish Republic?

I have never heard that yet, but perhaps I missed either the press cutting or the public statement.

Mr M McGuinness: The Taoiseach has made it absolutely clear in the course of the past 12 months that the only reason that he would not go into Government with Sinn Féin is because he differs from Sinn Féin on the issue of Europe. That is another debate, but he told ‘The Irish Times’ that that is the reason that he would not go into Government with Sinn Féin.

This is important, William. It is important because as a political party representing the majority of nationalists and republicans in the North of Ireland it would be very helpful to us — and I presume it would be helpful to the other parties around the table — to know whether there are any circumstances under which the DUP is prepared to go into Government with Sinn Féin. Thus far, we have not received an answer to that question.

Dr McCrea: Our general election manifesto 2005 is clear:

“Sinn Féin could then only be considered for entry to an Executive after

- Complete visible, verifiable decommissioning.

- A total end to all paramilitary and criminal activity.

- The community is convinced the IRA has been stood down.”

Therefore, if it comes up to the mark of democracy — and we have stated what we mean by that—the Democratic Unionist Party has said that it will go into Government with democrats. However, there will have to be a clear end to association with paramilitarism and criminality; there will have to be complete, verifiable and visible decommissioning; and there will have to be a convincing of the unionist community that the IRA has been stood down; in other words, that no so-called army is threatening the stability of Northern Ireland. I have heard nothing from Sinn Féin since coming to this Committee that that is on its agenda or radar system at all — in actual fact I was told that those are dead issues.

Mr M McGuinness: The reality of the situation is that the DUP is going to find itself increasingly at odds with the full weight of public opinion within this process as we march towards the 24 November deadline.

From Sinn Féin’s perspective, and, indeed, from those of the other parties, although I cannot speak for them, it would be hugely beneficial if we could find ourselves during the course of our deliberations in this Committee in a position where we were convinced that we are dealing with a party that is serious about joining us in a power-sharing Executive at some stage later this year.

There is a very strong belief in the broad nationalist and republican community that the DUP is not interested in sharing power or taking its positions on the North/South Ministerial Council but is really interested only in frustrating the efforts of everyone else to see the institutions restored.

As Seán Farren mentioned earlier, at some stage in the process and in our deliberations, the DUP needs to convince the elected representatives of the SDLP and Sinn Féin that it is contemplating seriously the restoration of these institutions at some stage. I have been around for long enough to know that we will all have to undertake considerable work and that if people were working in good faith, we would have to be committed to being involved in all sorts of engagements over the summer to move forward the situation. I was surprised to learn today — and this is not a criticism of the SDLP; it is actually interesting — that the DUP and the SDLP held late-night meetings at Leeds Castle. Obviously, we were excluded from those meetings; we did not have the benefit of sitting down with the DUP leadership to discuss how we should take forward the situation.

I presume that all Committee members have given a commitment to continuing with this project over the coming period. If we are to spend our time in rooms such as this — and this has been a very long day — we would like to think that we would get a result at the end that will benefit all the people whom we represent. Therefore I hope that the DUP will consider it so that we can be in some way successful.

Something of a dilemma exists. It has been said in the past that if the IRA brought every single rifle, barrack-buster — as William McCrea calls them — and round of ammunition and placed them at Ian Paisley’s feet at the door of Parliament Buildings, it would still not be enough. The danger with these contributions to the Committee is that people will go away thinking that that is precisely our position: republicans will never be allowed to reach the waterline of democracy as outlined by the DUP.

Dr Farren: Mr McGuinness made a point about the SDLP meeting the DUP at Leeds Castle. I totally reject any implied criticism of whom the SDLP meets; the SDLP meets whomsoever the SDLP decides to meet.

Mr M McGuinness: I made it clear that there was no criticism.

Dr Farren: You expressed surprise that we had met the DUP.

Mr M McGuinness: I expressed an interest; I did not express surprise, and I did not utter one word of criticism.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Please speak through the Chair.

Dr Farren: I think that we met all the parties that were present at Leeds Castle, and, as with any of those parties, the purpose of that meeting was to discuss our proposals on the review of the operation of the Good Friday Agreement. It was not the only time that we met the DUP; we met that party before and, indeed, since, but not very often. However, we will continue to engage with whomsoever we think will engage with us to any useful purpose that we think that such a meeting would serve.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Mr McCrea, do you want to respond?

Dr McCrea: There certainly seemed to be surprise at the fact that the DUP met the SDLP. The DUP met the SDLP at Leeds Castle and Stormont, and we constantly meet its Members at Westminster. I find nothing in that at all; that is certainly the process of normal democratic parties. There is nothing untoward in any of that that causes either surprise or the idea that the meeting should not have happened.

The DUP is willing to see Government formed and be a part of an Administration that is based on democratic principles alone. Every party must decide to come up to that mark and renounce the path of violence. We have made it abundantly clear that only those who use exclusively peaceful and democratic means can be a part of any Executive.

4.00 pm

That is no surprise whatsoever — we have said that both in Committee and outside. This Committee alone will not solve the situation, because the people who need to be dealt with are the boys outside this room. They must be stopped, and they must be brought to justice. We must see that criminality and paramilitary activity have stopped. Those who are involved in criminality and paramilitary activity must be stopped, and they must face justice. We could go round in circles many times, but that issue will not be resolved in Committee. With the greatest respect, we could debate the issue until we are blue in the face. However, having scoped the issues, we say that those who can deliver, because of their associations with paramilitary groups, have a responsibility to do so in order that the only politics in Northern Ireland are democratic ones.

I have been quite open, and I have spoken for long enough in this debate. No one could suggest that anyone shied away from any of the questions that were asked; however, I would like to hear some of the other submissions.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I want to allow Mr McFarland and Mr Ford to speak during the remaining hour.

Mr M McGuinness: My final question is on the Ulster Unionist Party’s acceptance that it has a responsibility to do everything in its power to deliver loyalist paramilitaries. As a result of Reg Empey’s work on that issue, the party has nailed its colours to the mast. I ask the DUP whether it, as the largest unionist party, also has a responsibility to assist in that work.

Dr McCrea: I am neither going to get involved nor will I answer any question about the Ulster Unionist Party. It has assumed a mantle and formed an association with the PUP, which acknowledges that it is still the public face of the UVF. I genuinely cannot understand how Mr Ervine can still say that he is not a member of the UUPAG but of the PUP, and that he is the leader of the PUP. To belong to two political parties at the same time may prove difficult for some people, but, of course, a person as capable as Mr Ervine must feel that he has no difficulty in wearing those different hats.

The DUP offers the people a democratic alternative to paramilitaries. We say the same about other paramilitaries as we say about the IRA — they must not only cease their activity but also get rid of their weapons. Their weapons must be verifiably decommissioned, and they must retain no paramilitary grouping that threatens the stability of any future Government.

Mr M McGuinness: My question was —

Dr McCrea: The Ulster Unionists will stand by what they have decided to do, but I will certainly not add —

Mr M McGuinness: Let us put the Ulster Unionists to one side. Does the leadership of the Democratic Unionist Party have a responsibility to engage with loyalist paramilitaries to bring about an end to their criminality, their weapons and their attacks on people?

Dr McCrea: As far as the DUP is concerned, we have not engaged with the IRA in order to bring about an end to its paramilitary activity. The onus is on those paramilitary groups, and on the Government, to ensure that paramilitaries do not continue to exist in Northern Ireland and that Northern Ireland is not a breeding ground for paramilitary activity in future. We will use our influence and whatever power we have to offer the parliamentary rather than the paramilitary alternative.

Mr McFarland: I am much encouraged by comments that William McCrea made earlier this afternoon, and, briefly, I want to tease something out. He said that the DUP is open for engagement with other democratic parties. We have been trying to engage with the DUP for some months, but this is our first engagement with the party since November 2004.

In the light of Dr Paisley’s recent public statements — on several occasions, he has said that he will not negotiate with other parties; he will negotiate with Downing Street directly — do William McCrea’s comments about the DUP’s willingness to engage with other parties reflect its current position, or is Dr Paisley’s position extant?

Dr McCrea: As regards engaging with other parties, we are negotiating with our Government. The main negotiations that we will have will be with the Government. Dr Paisley has made that abundantly clear. Certainly, as we have stated in the past and has been made clear by Dr Paisley, we will engage with other democratic parties and with those that are not linked to terrorist organisations.

As Mr McFarland will know, the recent decision taken by his party does not make that situation any easier. In fact, it has blurred the line and, in many ways, his party — certainly not mine — has let Sinn Féin off the hook as regards its dealings with the IRA. It is sad to say that the UUP’s decision has blurred some of the clear distinctions that had been made in the past. My party is under the direction of its leadership, and whom it will or will not speak to has not been decided and will not be decided by me sitting at this table. My party leader will decide.

Mr Ford: I am sure that in this newly found spirit of sharing and partnership, which we have discovered, at least, at local council level this afternoon, William McCrea would wish to take the opportunity to praise the role of the Alliance Party in those power-sharing arrangements, notably in Larne, Belfast — I have to say that while Naomi is sitting beside me — and Castlereagh. I add my congratulations to William McCrea’s colleagues on having discovered the virtues of power sharing in Newtownabbey and trust that he will persuade his colleagues in Antrim of the same.

On a more substantive point, William McCrea referred to “parties” in the plural as having complained of being excluded from the negotiations in 2004 and, therefore, not wishing to take on any key roles at this stage. He quoted from the Ulster Unionist paper. He acknowledged to Seán Farren that he did not mean the SDLP. I trust that he will acknowledge formally that that is not the Alliance Party’s position. In fact, he should acknowledge that “parties” should have been in the singular.

I want to check the DUP’s position — I do not want to go on to the agenda item; I want to get the DUP’s assessment — on a working party on the economic challenges. William McCrea and his colleagues feel that we are not yet at the point where there is a realistic role for his party to sit down with the other four parties, the Northern Ireland Business Alliance, trades unions and the other social partners to examine the challenges ahead in the preparation for devolution. This is part of the question of how far the DUP is prepared to engage —

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We will come to that subject.

Dr McCrea: I acknowledge that, in a number of councils, we have endeavoured to work with the other parties. We trust that we will be able to continue to work with the other parties to ensure that we have stable administrations in local government. We have never run away from the challenges that that brings to us. However, we take each situation as it comes. I am delighted that in my constituency of South Antrim, the councils in Newtownabbey and Antrim are seeing certain steps in that direction.

Mr Ford: Just half of your constituency.

Dr McCrea: It is a large part of the constituency, believe it or not, because both those areas are mainly in South Antrim. However, we will leave that to the side.

We are coming to the issue of economic challenges. Today, we found out in a letter from the Secretary of State that he acknowledges that the proper and appropriate place for a decision to be made on the working group on the economy is the Business Committee. Any views expressed by this Committee must go back to the Business Committee. The Secretary of State wrote:

“I would intend to do so immediately and to invite the Business Committee to determine membership and arrangements for chairing the Committee”.

Therefore, it is a matter for the Business Committee, which is why I do not think it needs to be discussed by this Committee.

In actual fact, we wanted this Committee to move the working group on the economy forward through the Business Committee before now. The working group should be up and running by now. The agreement on its creation was sent from the Assembly on 15 May 2006.

Mr Ford: I just wanted to establish the DUP’s view on co-operation, and that was an example. I appreciate what has been said.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Unless there is urgent business to be discussed, do members want to take a comfort break for five minutes?

Mr Morrow: Perhaps 10 or 15 minutes?

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): If we are quick about it.

Mr McFarland: We should establish how colleagues envisage the day closing. For example, what is our anticipated finish time? Are we meeting tomorrow morning? If tomorrow runs like today, will we meet on Thursday?

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I suggest that we do not hear the Sinn Féin submission during this session. There are two items of business from Madam Speaker and the Clerk. I suggest that we deal with them after the break and then decide on the arrangements for tomorrow.

The Committee was suspended at 4.10 pm.

On resuming —

4.25 pm

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): First, I propose to deal with the letter from the Speaker in relation to the working group. Everyone has a copy of in front of them.

Mr McFarland: Mr Chairman, could you remind us of the subject?

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): It is the letter from the Speaker in relation to the working group on the economy.

Dr McCrea: Mr Deputy Speaker, this matter came from the Assembly and went to the Business Committee. For some reason it has slipped out of the Business Committee’s business and into the Preparation for Government Committee’s business.

The letter from the Secretary of State to Mrs Bell clearly indicates that this matter is the business of the Business Committee, which is to determine membership and arrangements for chairing that Committee. I believe that that is the appropriate place for it to be, and that the Business Committee should take it forward. We certainly do not believe that that should be under the authority of a subcommittee of the Preparation for Government Committee.

Mr Murphy: In discussions on this matter, a view was represented in the Business Committee — given that members were presenting issues that they thought were of importance — that this issue would need to be worked on as part of preparation for Government at this Committee. This matter may well fall into that category because, in nearly all of the parties’ presentations on paper, practically all of the parties identified economic regeneration, a peace dividend, a financial package — whatever way you wish to describe it. Certainly, work in relation to economic matters and some financial arrangements to underpin the restoration of devolution were identified as a key item that parties see in relation to restoration of Government.

The Secretary of State’s letter to Eileen Bell suggests that it would be helpful to have a view from this Committee on whether the working group should be set up as a separate group or as a subcommittee of the Preparation for Government Committee. If there is a preference for a separate Committee, obviously communicated from us to the Business Committee, then the Secretary of State would ask the Business Committee to make those arrangements.

This issue has been identified by all of the parties — the Alliance certainly referred to it in its verbal presentation, if it was not in its written presentation, and the DUP has identified it as an issue which is one that they presented to this Committee as an issue of preparation for Government. Therefore, I suggest that it would be illogical for a separate Committee that contained people who were party spokespersons or party experts on this issue to go off and do separate work without any reference to a matter that has been flagged up by all of the parties to this Committee.

Therefore, the most logical course would be that we nominate Members either from this Committee, or from our parties who deal with these issues, and have a Committee or a subcommittee report back to this Committee. I do not think that that would necessarily take a very long time. They could report back to this Committee with recommendations or views and make a report to us that we could consider. It may well then be the case, as was the normal practice with other Committees when the Assembly was functioning, that such a report goes to the Assembly for its views.

That would be the most logical course because we have all identified this matter as an area of work and interest for us. To ask the Business Committee to set up a completely separate Committee, with no reference to us, to deal with that would not make very much sense.

4.30 pm

Dr McCrea: This working group proposal emanates from a debate. [Interruption.] This emanates from the Assembly, which proposed that a working group be set up. It would therefore be totally wrong to take that group away from the Assembly, as participants from the various parties would be on it. The working group is not in the remit of this Committee: we are to scope the issues that are preventing Government. That is sufficient for us; there is no reason why the economic working group could not go forward under the authority of the Business Committee, as it would sit very comfortably there.

I have said from the word go that the remit of this Committee is quite sufficient, and I do not believe that it should be extended. The DUP believes that the working group should be in the hands of the Business Committee.

Mr McFarland: Mr Chairman, we are getting rather good at this. My sense is that we will not get consensus on the Committee, given that one of the parties we have heard from thinks that the working group should come from here, while the other thinks that it should be in the hands of the Business Committee. Rather than go all around the Wrekin and have another hour of generous debate, I suggest that the Chairman finds out whether we are likely to get consensus. If not, we have other business that we might reasonably proceed with.

Dr Farren: Like Alan, I sense a stand-off coming over me, although I hope that that will not transpire. Since the proposal for the Committee came from a debate in the Assembly, and since most of the parties in the Committee have referred in their submissions to the need for a programme of economic regeneration, why can we not marry both the suggested ways for taking this forward? In other words, parties could ensure that there is an overlapping membership of at least one between this Committee and a working group that the Business Committee would appoint as a result of the Assembly resolution. There could be liaison between the two, as we are all working to the same end, I trust, on this issue, if on no other. Surely, it is not beyond our wit to find a way of evading a standoff and of taking the issue forward.

Mr Ford: Before we broke, I asked the DUP about its willingness to engage with the other parties and with other bodies — business, trades unions, and the social partners, in a wider process. If the Business Committee recommended such a process, it would be inappropriate for it to be a subcommittee of this Committee, as this Committee has been established for a very specific purpose. The Assembly resolution calls on the economic working group to make recommendations to a restored Executive, which seems to be beyond the remit of this Committee.

I am not sure whether it was deliberate, but I noticed that the last sentence of the Speaker’s letter asks whoever it was addressed to to seek the views of this Committee. It seems that we will soon have at least five views on this issue. Perhaps all that we can do is report those views. There is considerable merit in what Seán Farren said about seeking a degree of overlap in the membership so that people are informed about what is going on. However, that is different from being constituted as a subcommittee.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do we have proposals?

Dr McCrea: It is up to the party leaders to propose members of their parties for a committee. Such decisions are not in our gift; neither should we take that authority upon ourselves.

We have responsibility for those issues, and I propose that the Business Committee should take them forward. The Business Committee does not have a very hefty programme of business. If someone were to have attended this afternoon’s meeting of the Business Committee, they would have found that members were looking for some encouragement and would be willing to take on some challenges. Some Committee members acknowledged that they were frustrated that there was no business. This is an issue that they could get their teeth into.

Mr McFarland: I wonder whether there is some scope for accommodation. Suppose, for example, the Committee were to agree with Sinn Féin that we set up a subcommittee to examine economics; Sinn Féin could have a bit of a win there. I wonder whether Sinn Féin would agree that the other parties that wish to conduct a debate on the Review of Public Administration (RPA) on the Floor of the House would be able to do that. Everybody gets something that they want. In return for a subcommittee examining economics, the DUP and the other parties get a debate on the RPA, which we are all desperate to have before the summer recess so that those issues can be aired.

Mr Murphy: There is nothing to stop the other parties from making proposals to debate the RPA on the Floor of the House. The other parties made proposals for debates to which Sinn Féin objected, but those debates were, nonetheless, agreed to by the Secretary of State. It is not in our gift whether the RPA is debated; it is in the gift of the Secretary of State.

Mr McFarland: My understanding is that the Secretary of State is stating that motions for debate in the House must come from this Committee; he is not seeking motions for debate from the Business Committee. That is a problem because there are no debates. In return for setting up a subcommittee, this Committee would agree, with Sinn Féin’s consent, to conduct a debate on the RPA in the House. The Secretary of State will go for that. If the proposal comes from this Committee, it will be latched on to in about 30 seconds. Everybody would get something out of that deal, and it would take us forward in a positive way.

Mr M McGuinness: Other members of the Committee should reflect on Conor Murphy’s proposal. Sinn Féin clearly states that it believes that this work is related to preparation for Government. If such a committee were formed, I envisage that it would take it a very short time — not months, not weeks, only a few days — to produce a report that could be brought back to this Committee. Members of this Committee could then recommend that the results of their work be put forward to the Business Committee, with our support that there be a debate in the House on what is clearly an issue for preparation for Government.

We are dealing with the difficulties that Alan McFarland has highlighted. The DUP obviously has a difficulty; it is mad to have all sorts of debates in the House. People have to appreciate that we have a difficulty insofar as, from the beginning, we have outlined that our presence here relates to preparation for Government, and to do that by the earliest possible date this side of 24 November.

I would like to hear from the DUP whether it can facilitate us and we, in turn, facilitate the DUP.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Will the Business Committee put together the structure of this committee?

Mr Murphy: Only if there was a proposition for a separate committee.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): In relation to a subcommittee, is that not the proposal?

Mr Murphy: Peter Hain’s letter states:

“If the preference is for a separate committee”.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): There are different propositions floating around.

Mr M McGuinness: I am hoping that we can find common ground with the DUP.

Dr McCrea: I have made a proposal that I believe is in accordance with the wishes of the Assembly. I agree with most of Mr Ford’s remarks that the Business Committee would be natural place for it to be. I think that the Business Committee should take forward this issue. I am really surprised to hear that this could all be done in a few days.

What kind of report are we going to have? Will there be no proper scrutiny of all of the issues to ensure that we have something sufficiently competent to take forward? I honestly think that this is not a matter of days. There are many issues, and it is important that they are taken forward.

We will not have agreement on all of the issues across all of the parties, but we must ensure that there is assistance for the business community — a matter that was debated in the Assembly. This matter comes directly from the Assembly, but others have hijacked it in order to try to form a subcommittee of this Committee.

In my opinion, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, by sleight of hand, tried to exercise his power by not referring this matter. Once again, that was done to placate a particular party. It was not done for the betterment of the business community, or of industry, or to have a proper economic debate. That was because one party declared that it would not agree to a debate, or to go through the Business Committee. That party would not give credence to the fact that the Assembly brought forward something solid, wanted to progress it and wanted to get the issue dealt with. My proposal still stands.

Dr Farren: This morning, I attended a meeting of the Northern Ireland Business Alliance. David Ford was in attendance, as were representatives of the other parties. It is obvious that the business community and others in the wider network of social partners are anxious to contribute to and support an initiative along the lines that are being proposed.

This work will not be completed in a very short time. A certain amount of consideration by and engagement with social partners is needed in order to create a credible set of proposals. However, I do not think that the kind of stand-off that is emerging will be greeted with any welcome whatsoever among the people that the parties met this morning or, indeed, among the wider social partnership, if they find that we cannot agree on how to put together a committee.

Earlier, I said that, out of what has been submitted, nearly all of the parties have been explicit in respect of discussion on the establishment of a committee to deal with economic development. That suggests that we need to find a mechanism to take that matter forward. Surely that must mean some form of committee or subcommittee.

Given that there was a debate in the Assembly that recommended the establishment of a committee, and we have work relating to that, it should not be beyond our wit to find a way to marry the two proposals so that we can get down to business. Grandstanding on prior positions will not have any credibility within the community, which wants to see us addressing all of the issues that relate to economic development.

Mr McNarry: I was quite surprised to sit here this afternoon and be treated to a good discussion, which pleased me. I am now not pleased because, on a pedantic issue, with respect, it starts to go off the rails. That is, perhaps, the course of things.

In the early days, captains of industry came to the Senate, and to the best of my recollection all parties were represented to hear what the captains of industry had to say. They had a good message that was followed up.

4.45 pm

We are talking about the differences between us. It seems to me — and it is difficult for me not to relay this to the people outside — that some people want to diminish the Assembly. Not only that, but they want to diminish the Business Committee, which has been legitimately set up. Last night, I had a conversation with a Ms Jackson from Peter Hain’s office who tried to explain to me why we cannot have a debate on education. At the time I did not know that I was coming here today. She proceeded to tell me that deciding topics for debate used to be a matter for the Business Committee, but that that had been superseded by this Committee. However, she could not tell me which Committee would make the decision. We are at risk of getting bogged down with Committees and subcommittees when the objective should be to get across a viewpoint and, where possible, a consensus that represents this Assembly.

My colleague Alan McFarland made a proposal that would involve the Review of Public Adminstration. I do not know about Sinn Féin — because RPA is a live issue with it — but there is a general consensus with all the other parties that a debate on it would be useful. I sat for a number of hours listening to everybody in the belief that I was taking part in an enabling process. However, I now find that there is still a desire to try to stifle development and that there are those who do not want to enable. I am now discovering that some people want to take charge and that there is — as has been shown by colleagues elected to this House — a plethora of motions that people would like to debate. However, they are being obstructed. There is no clarity.

Judging by this letter, the Secretary of State is all over the place. He is the guy who insulted me — and it is up to other members to decide whether they were insulted — by saying that I was not earning my pay. However, when there are opportunities for me to earn my pay, he prevents them. I find it difficult to get my head round that. I would like to see unanimity among the parties to establish the authority of our membership and what we want for this Assembly, rather than have it dictated by the Secretary of State only for him to weasel out of it.

Forgive me for not knowing from where the request came that subjects for debate should be decided by this Committee. However, if that is what the Secretary of State wants, then he makes the Business Committee redundant. If he does that, the Assembly is left to those who grace this room, because there is no other place to grace; there is no other place to go. Quite frankly, I will not take too kindly to any Member who would take that away from me. We could reach a consensus on the basis that at the first available opportunity this Assembly — whether it is called the Hain Assembly or given any other name — could choose to give decision-making to the Business Committee. That Business Committee is now being prevented from carrying out its duties, and that frustration is flowing on to the Members.

In all reasonableness, this Committee should not seek to have placed upon it any responsibility for the business that the Secretary of State wants to place on it. That should go back to him if Members cannot agree. The Business Committee was designated to take care of that matter, and it should be left to do that. It is an erroneous responsibility for this Committee to take on. How on earth, in two or three days, would one pay tribute to the businessmen who asked us to consider matters that would help the economy of Northern Ireland? If we could do that, we would be multimillionaires.

Mr McGlone: With regard to item 3 on the agenda, which concerns the working group on economic challenges facing Northern Ireland, the pedantics of what we get up to and how we deal with that is of little concern to the people whom I know from the business community. Their concern is that we just do it. Either we do it here this afternoon or we do not, and we go out that door and explain to people why we did not, or, more positively, why we did. That is why I am here — to work the positives and to work the mandate that I have been given, because I am held accountable in my community to ensure that progress is being made in the best interests of that community. It will be some reflection on us all if we leave here today without even agreeing on how we set up a working group on the economy.

Mr Ford: Seán Farren referred to the meeting with the Northern Ireland Business Alliance that we attended this morning, along with representatives from the other three parties. At that meeting, it was clear that there was a willingness on the part of the Business Alliance to engage with the five parties in whatever direct way seemed appropriate. There was more than a willingness; there was a keenness to get involved in assisting the Preparation for Government Committee. There was a recognition that we would also need to involve other social partners alongside the business community, and there was a recognition that it would take some time to do that job well.

Patsy McGlone made the point that the precise structures are irrelevant. The important thing is that MLAs are engaged in making preparations with those who have a stake in the economy. If we cannot agree on how that is done in this Committee, surely we can at least agree that it should be done. If that is the lowest common denominator of a consensus decision, can we at least agree this afternoon that it should be done, and that we pass that view to the Speaker?

Dr McCrea: I have listened and I agree with Mr McNarry’s remarks. In many ways, the Secretary of State, by sleight of hand, has undermined the authority of the Business Committee, and that is a tragedy. It is also a travesty of the proper process of this institution, and he is doing it to placate one grouping.

There is no lack of willingness from the Democratic Unionist Party to engage in such an exercise with all the parties. The Business Committee ought to take it forward, but I am led to believe that Standing Orders were not in place in time to allow that to happen. If the present Standing Orders were in place, the matter would have automatically gone through the Business Committee. Therefore, as this proposal came from the Assembly, it ought to go through the Business Committee. Sinn Féin’s position is that the matter ought to go through this Committee, although it was never referred by the Assembly to this Committee, but was taken out of context by the Secretary of State for his own reasons. However, to be helpful, it states on the first paragraph of the second page of the Secretary of State’s letter to Eileen Bell:

“If the preference is for a separate committee to be set up by way of direction from me, I would intend to do so immediately”.

I invite the Business Committee to determine membership, but not take it forward as the Business Committee or, if it is the mind of this meeting, to ask the Secretary of State to separately set up a committee to take the issue forward and, therefore, each party could send Members to that.

If that is a helpful way forward, I am certainly saying that the DUP would be willing to accept it. It is not what we wanted, but if that is what assists in ensuring that it is not through the Business Committee of the Assembly but directly under the direction of the Secretary of State, there is no reason why a separate committee under his direction could not be set up to which each party could send representatives. If that gets over the hiatus in the whole thing and is helpful, I am willing to assist in that way.

Mr M McGuinness: If that issue is not dealt with by this Committee, somebody needs to explain to me who will deal with all the other issues, such as policing, etc, etc. This is the Preparation for Government Committee. All parties have brought forward papers on a wide range of issues that they want to see addressed. It appears to me that the only sensible way to proceed is through this Committee.

With respect to David McNarry, I do not think that standing in the Assembly and having a waffling session around RPA or anything else is earning his money. The purpose of the Assembly was to govern, to produce an Executive, to legislate and to bring about change to people’s lives through the different ministerial portfolios that all parties entitled to be in Government would have.

The DUP strategy has been clear for some considerable time. The DUP wanted a shadow Assembly, and it wanted that to last for two years. That is not acceptable to Sinn Féin. Whether it is acceptable to the Ulster Unionists, the SDLP or the Alliance Party is a matter for all of them. It is not acceptable to us. We are not going to play the DUP game, because that is what debates in the Assembly are all about. They are not about seriously preparing for Government.

We have been here almost every day, and I accept that Mr McNarry has only just come into the Committee today, but it has been a fairly horrendous experience being in this room and trying to ascertain whether the DUP will take the opportunity through the existence of this Committee to begin a real engagement with Sinn Féin. Thus far we have not seen any of that. I do not give up. I hope that over the course of the coming period that better sense will prevail and that the DUP will recognise that there is a job of work to be done.

Sinn Féin is not going to play the DUP game and will not be bullied by the DUP into setting up a talking shop downstairs that has no credibility whatsoever with the electorate who sent Mr McNarry, or indeed me, here. The electorate knows that at the end of all those discussions, the people taking the decisions come from somewhere else. They do not come from within this Building.

Mr McNarry: Chairman, if I may just respond. I am not terribly interested in any games. As regards my electorate and its judgement on earning my money, I never made such statements. The Secretary of State has rammed it down my throat, and I take offence at that.

I am sitting here and listening to Mr McGuinness, and I am not impressed. Fair enough.

Mr M McGuinness: Will Mr McNarry take a point about the impression that he gives?

Mr McNarry: I am not —

Mr M McGuinness: The impression that he gives is of standing down there and engaging in a debate, sending a message to the public that he is earning his money.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): One at a time.

Mr McNarry: I am not impressed, Chairman, with what I have heard as the reasoning. I accept it nevertheless, but I am not impressed. But for Sinn Féin to join with the Secretary of State in expanding the veto as to what I can and cannot do does not really augur well for the outcome that I would genuinely like from this Committee.

5.00 pm

For Sinn Féin to compare the intricacies and the involvement of what it needs to declare on policing — because I do not know its policy on that — as opposed to what it needs to declare on economics, its policies on which I have a certain knowledge, are two entirely different things.

I would like to hear both of those espoused in the Assembly under any circumstances. However, for the purpose of what we are discussing, all I can say is that the issue of economics has a very wide audience. That audience will be aware, as Patsy McGlone said, that this Committee may have stumbled on it, and the reason for it stumbling does not augur well for it being able to get over the hurdles of other equally significant major issues.

I hear what Martin says. I am not impressed by it. It is the same sound bite that I hear any time he does not want to do what he does not want to do. In terms of concessions or giving anything, it is the same stuff. He does not give anything. The worst aspect of that is that he is not even prepared to consider another person’s point of view. That is all I that I have asked him to do.

Mr M McGuinness: I have suggested what I think is a sensible way to proceed. It is obviously not going to find favour with the DUP. If it did then it would all be a matter of form, everybody else would fall into line — we know that. Maybe I am wrong, but I think that is what would happen.

The DUP needs to reflect on whether or not in the course of our deliberations at this Committee we are, at some stage, going to make some connection with one another, recognise each other’s difficulties and come to some agreement vis-à-vis how we move forward.

I am saying very clearly that I believe that the work of preparing for Government should reside with this Committee. There is a whole plethora of issues that must be dealt with. They have been identified by all of the parties. I do not agree with all of them, but we have a duty and responsibility to discuss them.

We have to find a way to take this work forward. It appears that many people place a huge value on going to the Assembly Chamber and having a debate. Obviously the reason for that is to show that this place is working and that people are earning their money and effecting change. The reality is that they are not effecting any change whatsoever, because British direct rule Ministers will still take the decisions whatever happens and whatever the content of those debates.

Debates do not bring us any quicker to the restoration of these institutions. In fact, one can make the argument that to fall into that trap is to prolong the agony. Clearly a situation will arise whereby the DUP, if it gets its debates in the Assembly, will say: “Well, everything is hunky dory, let us continue on until November of next year.” Sinn Féin will not continue on until November of next year. If other parties want to do that, that is a matter for them — well, they obviously will not be able to do so until November of next year, but until May of next year. That is not a game that we can play. We have come to this Building to set about the serious work of preparing for Government.

We have all been around long enough to know that if there is no connection made between the DUP and Sinn Féin in terms of taking this work forward, Members can go down and debate in the Assembly from now to kingdom come, but they will not have the institutions restored. That is the reality that we are dealing with.

Since we came in here I have, on a number of occasions, made proposals and suggestions that I hoped would find favour with the DUP, which would allow me to go back to Sinn Féin and say: “Well, I think that something important is happening here and that, because of the deadline and everything else, the DUP is recognising the need to engage in the real work of putting the institutions back and that we are involved in the serious work of preparing for Government.” However, even as we sit here today — and Mr McNarry has only just come here this afternoon — we have not had any sense whatsoever that we are even on that road.

To expect Sinn Féin to play that game — because as far as we are concerned, it is a game orchestrated by the DUP — is to do a great disservice to the work of trying to implement the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement.

Mr McFarland: It is after 5.00 pm, and we have had a long day, but I think it has been a good day. It is probably one of the most encouraging days, in spite of things, that we have had in the Assembly with all the parties here.

The DUP has taken a bit of stick over the past few days about intransigence, and now we are just having a bit of intransigence from Sinn Féin. I made a proposal earlier to try and find a way through, which I now withdraw.

There is a reality, which is that the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Hain Assembly, or whatever you want to call it, had a debate. That debate came, as colleagues have said, on the back of a long discussion with business leaders, meetings in the Senate Chamber, etc, and all sorts of tick-tacking outside over a period of months about the importance of the economy and the rates issue etc.

We had a debate — and I know that Sinn Féin did not take part, but everyone else did — and the collective voice from the majority of people in the Assembly was that we get on with creating some sort of committee to look at this in detail with the business community. That was the will of the majority of people. I know that Sinn Féin do not necessarily want to do that — and I cannot understand why, because businessmen who associate with Sinn Féin will be equally as disturbed about this as everyone else.

If we cannot agree on this, which we clearly cannot, then it needs to be referred back. Let us do that now and let the Secretary of State get on with producing whatever needs to be produced.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We will have three more DUP speakers; Maurice Morrow will be first.

Mr Morrow: Mr Deputy Speaker, when William McCrea was putting forward the DUP paper he was cross-examined — and indeed some of us would say that he was interrogated — by everybody around this table. That is fair game and we have no problem with that.

Martin McGuinness looked across this table and said, “We don’t know whether we are dealing with people who are genuine or not.” Well, perhaps he does not know.

William McCrea has put forward a proposal with which he is not entirely comfortable. However, he did it to move the whole thing forward. Martin McGuinness stamped on it. I suspect that if anyone else had proposed it he may have just tramped on it but not stamped on it. The message that Martin McGuinness is giving us here today is, “You will do it our way or no way; we will make absolutely certain of that. We will not give a millimetre; we will not budge one inch; we have nothing to give and we are giving nothing. We will bring this house crashing down around you if you do not do it our way.”

Mr McGuinness may have come from an organisation that was quite prolific in that respect. Let me say this to him. He can tramp and stamp all he wants and he can be as intransigent, belligerent and dictatorial as he wishes, but I want to say to him in all sincerity that he is going to find that the difference between these negotiations and last time is that the Unionists this time are different. Why are they different? They are different because they have lived through the past four or five years and have seen a process that has been just one way — not most of the time, but all of the time. It was a process in which what Sinn Féin asked for, it got, and if it did not get it it said it would bring the process down.

He may threaten that here today — and I suspect that that is his threat. The message I get quite clearly from him is that it is going to be his way or no way. If that is his attitude then he can be assured that it has been it has been well noted.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I find myself generally in agreement with David McNarry. The losers today will be the business community and the people out there who need us. We are being castigated for not doing the job for which we are paid. No matter what differences I have with anybody sitting round this table — and I have many differences with them and they have many differences with me — I believe that most MLAs take their work quite seriously at constituency level, and they do a fair job. However, I suspect that there are people out there who think that we are a bunch of malingerers and dodgers who are on the gravy train. The Secretary of State and Sinn Féin are going to make absolutely certain that no opportunity is given to local politicians to try to prove to the outside world that we are up for it and that we want to be seen to be doing — and not only seen to be doing, but actually doing — the job that we have been elected to do.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We have a proposal. This is a winding-up situation, and we need to move fairly quickly.

Mr M McGuinness: I urge Maurice not to misrepresent my position. He should also resist the temptation to speak for me because what he has just said is a total and absolute misrepresentation of where I am coming from. I am trying to find common ground with the DUP vis-à-vis how we take this situation forward. I do not think the DUP is up for it. However, because I say that, do not try to portray me as someone who thinks that it is my way or no way. I have suggested ways and compromises since I came into this room on the first day, and I have done that to ascertain whether we are dealing with a DUP that, at some stage, will engage with us, and work sincerely and genuinely in preparing for Government.

Maurice can put on whatever sort of sweet talk he wants for the sake of Hansard, giving the impression that the DUP is open and listening to ideas and suggestions, but the bottom line is that I do not think that the DUP is up for it. I want them to prove me wrong, but I have not heard anything since I came into this room that would indicate that the they are even thinking about doing the business with the rest of us. If we were to reach a point where we were getting some sort of a signal from any one of the three DUP Members that there was a possibility of the business being done, then we would be in a completely different ball game, but do not be under any illusions about where we three are coming from. We do not believe that the DUP is up for it, and we are not going to play the DUP game.

At some stage, everybody in this room will have to make an assessment as to whether this is going anywhere. I have talked to people who are connected to some of the parties represented in this room and they have told me not to worry about what is happening now, as it does not get serious until September, October and November. I wonder if some people are living on a different planet from the one that I inhabit. As far as I am concerned, it is serious when supporters of all the political parties think that their politicians are a crowd of tubes who could not get their act together in a million years. I deeply resent that and would be surprised if there were not many MLAs in all of the parties who also deeply resent that. At some stage there will have to be a connection between the DUP and Sinn Féin. Thus far we are not getting it. Do not interpret William’s proposal as sending a signal to Sinn Féin, because that is not the way I see it. The DUP will have to send a stronger signal.

Mrs Long: I do not want to lengthen this discussion, but it is not the Alliance Party’s position or its role, nor I suspect that of the Ulster Unionists or the SDLP, to fall into line with any party around the table. We have made our positions clear on how we think this should be taken forward, and if we are going to move this forward that needs to be respected by all the other parties at the table. There was no intent on our part to suggest that we would simply have fallen into line had the DUP not taken a contrary position to the one that Sinn Féin put forward, and I do not think that that is particularly helpful.

5.15 pm

We are now into the realms of debating the merits of whether we should have debates in the Assembly Chamber, which is not actually what we have been asked to do. We have been asked to give our views on whether we should set up an economic working group. I accept that it was introduced into the discussion in a genuine attempt to resolve the impasse that existed, but we need to focus on setting up an economic working group.

If we cannot agree this afternoon, would it not simply be sufficient that, as David Ford suggested earlier, we record our willingness to set up a working group, and refer that view to the Business Committee? There is no dissent on the view that the work needs to be done or that the group needs to be set up. If that is the lowest common denominator that we can reach, can we not simply refer that opinion, whether to the Secretary of State or to the Business Committee, so that that can actually happen?

The danger is that we walk away again, after days of time-wasting over who would chair meetings, not having been able to deal with the issue. Members of the business community will take a close look at that because they expect the people round this table to be serious about dealing with the issues that they have raised. We ought to try to find a way in which we can at least, on the minimum amount of agreement, move this issue forward as far as we can.

Dr McCrea: I have been trying to address the issues before the Committee. Naturally, the matter should have gone to the Business Committee and should never have arrived here. However, it is here, and having stated that, I cannot understand how it is linked to the debates in the Chamber, because that is not what is being asked.

It has been suggested — it is not my preferred option — but the Secretary of State said:

“If the preference is for a separate committee to be set up by way of a direction from me”

He is not suggesting a debate in the Chamber, rather a committee set up by the Secretary of State to deal with the issue, and to deal with the business personnel.

I will not take any lectures about how the Executive fell. Our party did not bring the Executive down. That was the fault of those who, on the one hand, said that they were riding a democratic horse but, on the other hand, were riding a completely anti-democratic horse. Therefore, we will take no lectures about that.

We are trying to find a way forward. I sat through four hours of what Maurice Morrow said could be called interrogation. Our delegation put itself forward for that, but at the end of it, what were we told? At the end of both the Alliance and DUP presentations, Martin McGuinness said:

“It was a very horrendous experience to be in this room.”

Mr M McGuinness: With respect, I was talking about my experience from the first meeting until now. I was not talking about —

Dr McCrea: The record will clearly state —

Mr M McGuinness: Well, I will correct the record now.

Dr McCrea: Martin McGuinness said that:

“It was a very horrendous experience to be in this room.”

That is insulting. Nevertheless, I am quite used to insults from that direction.

Mr M McGuinness: Well, it is another misrepresentation of what have I said.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Can we move to a conclusion?

Dr McCrea: There are people here who are losing the plot and losing the head.

I intended my proposal to be helpful. We should refer the matter back to the Secretary of State so that he can set up the Committee and allow the issues to be trawled. There is serious business, and I do not believe that it would be a few days work.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We have two proposals at the moment. William McCrea proposes to ask the Secretary of State, by direction, to set up the working group on the economy and to invite the Business Committee to determine the membership and arrangements for chairing the Committee. Do we have consensus on that one? No, I see that we do not.

The second proposal from Naomi Long is that the Committee records its willingness that a working group be set up. Do we have consensus on that?

Mr Morrow: Could we have clarification, please?

Dr McCrea: Is that not the same as what has been —

Mrs D Dodds: How does that take us forward?

Mrs Long: Perhaps on this occasion clarification is not helpful.

Mr Morrow: Let us live with ambiguity.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do we have consensus on that?

Mrs D Dodds: That is what we did with the Belfast Agreement.

Mr Murphy:            This is not just simply about an issue to do with the business community — important as that may be. This issue goes to the heart of this Preparation for Government Committee and how it is going to do its work.

If the first issue we meet that needs further work done is farmed off — or we do not farm it off, we disregard it, and it goes off somewhere else — then the next issue we meet and the next and the next, indeed all of the issues we have listed, will all go elsewhere, and that goes to the very heart. This is not simply an issue for the business community and the relationship and the issues that confront them. This is an issue of how this Preparation for Government Committee will work not only now, but in the future.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do we have consensus? Is that right?

Mr M McGuinness: Could I ask the DUP a question? Is the DUP —

Dr McCrea: I have answered enough questions today. I am not starting to go round that.

Mr M McGuinness: Is the DUP totally and absolutely opposed to the establishment of any subcommittees whatsoever under the auspices of this Committee?

Dr McCrea: We are not dealing with that issue. We are dealing with a specific issue that is before us, and we have made our position absolutely clear.

Mr M McGuinness: I think that is a fair question.

Mrs Long: The Sinn Féin objection to this as stated by Conor Murphy is that if we agree that we do not deal with this as a subcommittee of this Committee, then we will subsequently come to other issues. This was not raised formally as an issue at this Committee. That is not where this direction and this letter originated. It was raised on the Floor of the Assembly, debated there and agreed through the Business Alliance when it came to discuss it with us.

Mr M McGuinness: Yes, but this Committee did not exist then.

Mrs Long: We have had our view sought only on a proposal that has already been discussed elsewhere. I do not believe it sets a precedent for how we discuss other issues that will be raised in this Committee to simply assent to the fact that that working group should now be set up. That is just to clarify my position.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Your proposal is for the Economic Working Group to be set up?

Mrs Long: That is correct.

Mr Murphy: There is no proposal as to how it is.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I beg your pardon?

Mr Murphy: There is no proposal as to how it is set up — set up by whom or where? Everybody agrees that work to address the economic package for here —

Mr Ford: I am sorry, Chairman, Conor says that everybody is agreed, but we have not actually agreed.

Mrs Long: We have not actually agreed, and what I would like to do is to establish formally that we are agreed.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): One at a time.

Mr Murphy: In my own representation I made it clear that it was in everybody’s agenda. Now it was not — when this proposal was first discussed in the Assembly there was no Preparation for Government Committee. That is clearly an issue which cuts across the work that every party here has identified as an issue for Preparation for Government. There was no Preparation for Government Committee when it was set up, and that is the logical reason for referring it here because it is quite clearly identified as an issue which is of importance to here.

Mr McFarland: Chairman, I spoke about five minutes in, but my sense is that we are not going to get consensus on this issue. It is nearly half past five, everybody has had a long and, in my view, good day. We are all tired, and if we are not going to get consensus, you should establish that consensus is not available, and we can all go.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are we agreed that consensus is not available at this stage?

Members indicated assent.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The next issue is the response from the Clerk. If you want we can deal with it tonight or note it tonight and deal with it tomorrow.

Members indicated assent.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The other issue is the time of meeting tomorrow.

Mr McFarland: Chairman, I think we suggested last Friday that we would meet on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday from 10.00 am to 5.30pm. Providing everyone is happy, we should do the same as we did today. It was quite a useful day, and we have got three more parties to come.

There is an issue in terms of having a take at some stage tomorrow given that we had two parties today and we have three more to go. So, logically, if we are doing two parties a day, we will not get through everyone tomorrow. It would be useful, as early as the Committee can tomorrow, to identify if we are going to have to shuffle up on Thursday because there are diary issues to be had here. We could push forward tomorrow to try to get all three parties through in good time for 5.30pm.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are Members OK for a 10.00 am start tomorrow?

Members indicated assent.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We will try and get through as much as possible. Thank you very much.

Adjourned at 5.24 pm.

< previous / next >