COMMITTEE ON THE
PREPARATION FOR GOVERNMENT

Friday 18 August 2006

Members in attendance for all or part of proceedings:
The Chairman, Mr Francie Molloy
Mr Dominic Bradley
Mr Francie Brolly
Mr Gregory Campbell
Mr Derek Hussey
Mr Danny Kennedy
Ms Patricia Lewsley
Mrs Naomi Long
Mr Kieran McCarthy
Mr Dermot Nesbitt
Mr John O’Dowd
Mrs Patricia O’Rawe
Mr Ian Paisley Jnr
Mr Edwin Poots
Observing: Mr Jim Wells

The Committee met at 10.01 am.

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

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): You are welcome to the meeting. I remind members to switch off their mobile phones, because dialogue has been lost from almost every meeting due to interference. It is possible that we may lose a contribution that a member wants to be recorded — or, perhaps, something that he or she does not want to be recorded — so it is important that mobile phones be switched off completely to ensure an accurate Hansard report.

We will break for lunch at 12.20 pm, and I hope that the meeting will finish by 4.00 pm. If members want home earlier, talk quicker. Are there any apologies?

Mr O’Dowd: Francie Brolly, Pat O’Rawe and I are replacing our usual team.

Ms Lewsley: I am here on behalf of Mark Durkan.

Mr D Bradley: I am here on behalf of Alasdair McDonnell.

Mr McCarthy: I am here on behalf of David Ford.

Mr Kennedy: I am here on behalf of Alan McFarland.

Mr Nesbitt: I am here on behalf of one of the other two who normally attend.

Mr Campbell: Edwin Poots, Ian Paisley Jnr and I are here in place of our normal team; that does not mean that we are abnormal or subnormal.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are members content with the draft minutes of the meeting that was held on 11 August?

Members indicated assent.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The research paper on the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and domestic legislation in the Republic of Ireland appears in the agenda under “Matters Arising”.

Mr Nesbitt: I would like some clarity on the agenda now that the minutes have been agreed. I do not wish to be awkward, but it is important that the procedure is clear. Last week, we agreed — on Naomi’s recommend­ation — that a research paper on ECHR in the Republic of Ireland be commissioned, but we did not agree that it be taken as item 2 on today’s agenda. I am not saying that it should not be discussed, but we did not agree that it be item 2 on the agenda.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): It is not item 2 but appears under “Matters Arising”, which is item 2.

Mr Nesbitt: That is correct, but it is down as an item on the agenda, and if the agenda is accepted, that could lead to our discussing it now.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Or we could avoid a discussion on it.

Mr Nesbitt: I repeat that I am not opposed to its being discussed, but last week we agreed that research be undertaken. In agreeing that it be undertaken, I did not assume that it would appear as a quasi-substantive item in today’s agenda ahead of item 4, which is “Discussion on Equality and Shared Future Issues” — if that is the implication of its being placed there.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): That is not the intention.

Mr Nesbitt: The “Formation of a Round Table Forum on a Bill of Rights” is a matter arising, as is “Parades”. Those two issues should come under “Matters Arising” and not be listed as separate items under “Rights and Safeguards”. We must ensure that the procedure is clear. Item 4, “Discussion on Equality and Shared Future Issues”, is the first substantive item on today’s agenda.

Mrs Long: My understanding was that any issues in the minutes on which further information would be forthcoming would come under “Matters Arising”. That has been the procedure in all meetings of the Committee on the Preparation for Government (PFG) that I have attended to date. It is simply a courtesy to list the research in “Matters Arising” and inform members that it is included in our papers. That is the standard practice in all PFG Committee meetings, so I do not see a difficulty.

I do not envisage a lengthy discussion on the research, because we have not had an opportunity to consider it in detail. In all PFG Committee agendas, “Matters Arising” includes additional reports and information requests.

Mr Nesbitt: Although our meetings will not be too numerous, it might be better to list such items under “Matters Arising”, and if members have matters that they wish to raise, they can raise them. For example, item 2 of the agreed minutes of the meeting of 11 August states that:

“The Chairman agreed to seek a response from the Editor of Debates on this matter.”

That could be a matter arising that I could follow up, but it is not specifically listed as such. A little clarity is needed. When my party advisers mentioned what was on today’s agenda, the implication was that the discussion on equality might be way down the agenda. Therefore I sought a little clarity. I stress that I did not do so to be awkward; it was to ensure that we know under which procedure we are operating.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): On that point, Dermot asked whether Hansard could report members’ comings and goings. The Editor of Debates has said that it is not the role of the Official Report to record when members enter and leave the Committee Room; the role of the Office of the Official Report is to produce a report of the meeting. As much as possible, the minutes of Committee meetings record members’ comings and goings. If someone wanted to know which members were present at a particular time, they could look at the minutes in tandem with the Official Report.

The next issue for discussion comes under “Rights and Safeguards”, and it is the establishment of a round-table forum on a bill of rights. As is mentioned in the minutes, the DUP sought time to confirm its position on the establishment of a round-table forum. Any proposals did not go to a vote last week because of that. The DUP may wish to respond.

Mr Poots: After discussions with party officers, the DUP’s position is to seek the establishment of a round-table forum under the Committee of the Centre, which is an all-party Committee, once an Assembly has been formed.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): May I take it that the DUP is happy with the proposal?

Mr Poots: No. There are two proposals: one is to establish a round-table forum; the other is to establish it by a particular date. The Committee of the Centre in the Assembly should establish the round-table forum.

Ms Lewsley: My proposal was to support the basic principle of a round-table forum. Mr Poots says that the DUP now supports that, but only when the Assembly is up and running. That places a timescale on the establishment of a round-table forum. If the DUP agrees in principle with a round-table forum, I cannot understand why it does not support my proposal.

Mr Campbell: As Patricia has outlined, the issue is one of principle, so it should not pose a problem. It does not pose the DUP a problem. However, the Committee of the Centre was, and hopefully will be again, the conduit in the Assembly that would deal with such issues. We consider the Committee of the Centre to be the most appropriate forum in which any round-table discussions should be held. That is our reason for our position.

Ms Lewsley: The original proposal encapsulated the principle of a round-table forum and a date by when it would be established. That proposal was divided in two, much like the proposal concerning the bill of rights and the round-table forum was divided into two proposals.

Can we determine whether there is consensus to establish a round-table forum in the first instance? After that, proposals can be made on the timescale, whether they come from the DUP or Sinn Féin. A timescale for the forum is totally different to the principle of establishing it. I want to agree the first proposal on the round-table forum.

Mr O’Dowd: If the SDLP wants to put that proposal, I am more than happy for it to be put before the Committee, and I will speak afterwards.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The original proposal was that the Committee should support the formation of a round-table forum to help create a bill of rights for Northern Ireland. Is there consensus?

Members indicated dissent.

Mr Campbell: There is not consensus on that wording.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Is there an alternative wording?

Mr Nesbitt: To reiterate the Ulster Unionist Party’s position, we do not advocate a round-table forum. However, in the event of the Minister calling for a round-table forum to be established, we will participate in it. The primary reason for not supporting the round-table forum is that there has been a six-year delay in creating a bill of rights. If anything, the round-table forum will elongate the process without any guarantee at all that it will contribute to a solution.

Mr O’Dowd: I am disappointed that the Committee cannot even accept the principle of a round-table forum on a bill of rights. This Committee has deliberated over a wide range of equality issues, and the only way that we are going to get anything going is through the establishment of a bill of rights. The two Governments have caused unacceptable delay in that process.

Neither will we accept a consensus on a round-table forum on a bill of rights being tied to the establishment of an Assembly, because we are not going to allow the DUP to have a veto on a bill of rights or on an Assembly.

Mr Nesbitt: I am glad that Sinn Féin made that point, because I emphasised again last week that the Ulster Unionist Party supports a bill of rights. I wrote an article nine years ago advocating a bill of rights; that is on the record. There is no way that the UUP does not support a bill of rights. The problem for the UUP is the process by which a bill of rights is obtained. We believe that a round-table forum would elongate the process, making more distant the outcome that members here wish for. Back in January the Minister said that he would not have the round-table forum until September.

Ms Lewsley: May I ask for clarity from the DUP? Which part of the proposal do you have a problem with?

Mr Campbell: I would have thought that it was fairly clear. The Committee of the Centre is the forum in the Assembly that would deal with matters such as this. That was the case in the old Assembly. Because of the importance that we attach to these issues, we have recently proposed to this Committee that it ensure an even more fundamental role for the Committee of the Centre. It must be central to the development of issues around safeguard, equality and related matters. The round-table forum should be tied intrinsically to the establishment of the Assembly and the Committee of the Centre.

There is an idea abroad that equality issues can be resolved through parties sitting down and discussing matters involving equality on its own, as a stand-alone topic. We believe that they are fundamental to the future of our community as well as the other community. But the Committee of the Centre is the body in the Assembly that establishes that issue. To have a forum in the absence of any Assembly, never mind a Committee of the Centre, would be a waste of time. It would not take the issue forward; it certainly would not solve the long-standing issues that we believe need solving. The Committee of the Centre would be a better conduit for the resolution of those issues.

Ms Lewsley: The issue here is about supporting the proposal that was put forward, which is the basic principle of supporting a round-table forum.

I take on board what Gregory Campbell has said, but I am attempting to get consensus — around this oblong table — for a round table on a bill of rights. If that consensus is achieved, it will be up to the parties to propose who will sit on it; how many members should sit on it; where it should sit; and how it should progress. That is where the confusion lies. I do not expect to decide on all those things today, although we could agree on a timescale and decide on who will be responsible for it and who will sit on it. I understand that the DUP is in favour of having a round-table forum on a bill of rights, and I would like that proposal in principle to be agreed today.

10.15 am

Mr Campbell: Without an Executive or any method of delivery, what would be the point of a round-table forum? In the absence of an Assembly and a Com­mittee of the Centre, a round-table forum would enable the parties around that table to give their views. I am sure that the Secretary of State would thank us very much, and he would be appreciative; but then he would go off and do whatever he wanted.

To establish a round-table forum in the absence of any move would be to avoid the issue. I keep on hearing from other parties that we need to move in a direction that helps resolve these matters. A round-table forum would not do that; it would allow parties to air their grievances on a subject, as we will today. If anybody can convince the DUP that a round-table forum would be a positive way to take the issue forward, we might be prepared to listen. However, we have not seen or heard anything that would convince us that that forum — in the absence of any practical proposals to take the issue forward — would do anything to achieve that.

Mrs Long: Whether there is devolution or not, the bill of rights issue still needs to be progressed. The round-table forum will not produce the bill of rights; that is the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC). The forum would be an opportunity for the ideas and proposals of all interested parties — not only those around this table — to be market tested. Therefore the round-table forum is key to getting a wide breadth of opinion fed into the process of producing a bill of rights.

Whether there is devolution or not — and the Alliance Party prefers that this would happen in the context of devolution — the bill of rights needs to be developed. On that basis it would be beneficial to have the round-table forum established so that, as these talks progress, a wider cross section of the community could be consulted and informed about what is happening, and participate in the process. I suspect that Gregory Campbell is right: if direct rule continues, the Secretary of State will make the final decisions on a bill of rights. In that case, I would prefer that there was some type of forum in place to feed into that process, rather than none. If the Secretary of State chooses to ignore the forum’s opinions, we can take that up with him. However, if he does not have the benefit of hearing the opinions first, we can hardly criticise him for not listening.

Ms Lewsley: We do not know what the future holds, but we have agreed that we need a bill of rights. The best way to achieve that is through a round-table forum to include all the people that Naomi has mentioned. That will send the strong message to the wider com­munity that we support a round-table forum and a bill of rights and, therefore, the opportunity for them to have a voice.

Mr Brolly: The DUP’s position on this contradicts their normal position on talking shops. Gregory Campbell has said that the bill of rights should not be discussed outside of a re-established Assembly, because — even though members will be talking about it — we will have no authority or power to take it anywhere, and a decision on it will be made by the direct rule governors. That is the position that Sinn Féin took about the talking shops that were previously held on other issues in the Assembly.

Mr Campbell: I still have not heard any further declaration or improvement on this issue. I do not see how a round-table forum will be radically different to the present approach.

This Committee is a forum of sorts, which thus far has not made as much progress as it would like. Would a round-table forum on a bill of rights be a replica of this, and would it make any more progress than we have made? Is anybody suggesting seriously that the Committee of the Centre would not deal with these important issues? There has been broad acceptance that that would be the case.

It seems that there has been a role reversal. Some members appear to be saying that there is no prospect of the IRA’s going out of business in the next five years, and, consequently, no prospect of the restoration of a functioning Assembly, which includes, obviously, the Committee of the Centre and the Executive. According to that logic, as the restoration of the Assembly will not be permitted, the issue will not be dealt with, and a round-table forum will have to be established to fill the vacuum. It appears that certain members of the PFG Committee are close to taking that approach. However, the DUP is not prepared to accept that defeatist attitude.

We have to move forward in the expectation that people will move with us. People have been moving; let us keep them moving. We must work towards resolving these very important issues in the way in which they ought to be resolved. They will not be resolved by establishing a forum that goes nowhere, and which sets no date and makes no progress towards establishing a proper forum that can really deliver, discuss the issues, make proposals and question Ministers. That would enable us to make progress on this issue, rather than simply having a discussion that does not go anywhere.

Patricia Lewsley mentioned that the Secretary of State could take account of the views of a round-table forum. Yes, he could — just as he could have taken account of the views of the South Eastern Education and Library Board. Unfortunately, he did not: he chose instead to send in commissioners. Are members really going to choose to go down the route of asking for more consultation, more round tables and more hot air? Are they going to allow Ministers to thank them for their views, but do as they please? Or will members decide that they can nail this down, tell the Ministers what issues must be resolved, and how they should be resolved, which is through the proper mechanisms of the Committee of the Centre and the Assembly Executive?

Mr Kennedy: It is clear that there is not going to be consensus. My party said earlier that it is also against the establishment of a round-table forum because it would serve no useful purpose. The discussion on this matter has been good and useful, but, given the absence of consensus, we should move on.

Ms Lewsley: Danny is right; we are not gong to reach consensus. It is sad because, last week, my understanding of the DUP’s position was that it was, and still is, in favour of a round-table forum. However, the party has added the caveat that such a forum cannot be agreed unless it is given some structure. That sends a very clear message to the public.

We had the opportunity to debate this matter last week, but the SDLP had hoped that some of the detail would have been ironed out at the round-table forum and in other forums that would give civic society the opportunity to voice its opinion. I am saddened that we could not reach consensus on the very basic principle of setting up a round-table forum.

Mr Paisley Jnr: We should make it clear for the record that it is not a matter of finding consensus on the basic principle; it is a matter of finding consensus on the trigger mechanism for its establishment. That is where the problem lies. You may not see that, but everyone who reads Hansard will see clearly that the trigger mechanism is the problem, not the issue of whether, in principle, any future Assembly Committee decides or does not decide to implement such a process.

Ms Lewsley: Sorry, but I think that you are wrong. If you look at the minutes, you will see that I said at the beginning that the proposal should be separated into two proposals. The first proposal was that consensus should be reached on the basic principle of establishing a round-table forum, and the second was that other parties would be entitled to make proposals on the trigger mechanism and the detail.

Mr Paisley Jnr: Again, if you read the proposal that you put to the meeting, you will see that it would not allow that to happen.

Mrs Long: I do not want to prolong the discussion. Regardless of whether other members agree on the principle, the Ulster Unionist Party has said that it does not agree. As one party will not consent to even the principle, we are just talking around the houses.

Gregory said that the proposal for the establishment of round-table forum on a bill of rights was designed to fill a vacuum. That is not how I view the matter. Should devolution be restored, the Human Rights Commission would bring its firm proposals to the round-table forum, consult on them and then consult the Northern Ireland Executive, which would bring them to the Assembly.

If that were not the case, they would advise the Sec­retary of State. I cannot accept that the proposal was designed simply to be taken forward in a vacuum. If devolution is restored, the value of civic society’s con­­tinuing to be engaged in the process will remain valid.

In addition, I am not sure that we can say that the PFG Committee does not operate as a round-table forum. It is “a” round-table forum. The difference is that it is not “the” round-table forum that members envisage. For example, the Human Rights Commission has not attended the PFG Committee to consult members on detailed proposals, which is what members would expect of it at the round-table forum. We will not get consensus on the proposal, but it was valid. If we cannot establish consensus, even at that level, we will send out a disturbing message about the issues involved in the formulation of a bill of rights.

Mr Poots: Consensus could be formed, but it has to be achieved on the basis of the first principle, which is that, whatever happens, the support of both communities can be commanded. The only available way to do that would be a cross-community vote in the Assembly. Establishing round-table forums to drive particular agendas and to which interest groups would come to give their points of view would not achieve that con­sensus. Ultimately, if we want a bill of rights that will work and will be supported by the community, we must establish cross-community support in the Assembly.

If the SDLP is minded to establish a forum under the Committee of the Centre, consensus could be achieved on that. However, the proposal is fairly vague and could not achieve that.

Mr Nesbitt: Naomi said that we might send out a disturbing message. I do not concur with that. My party advocates a bill of rights. However, after six years of an elongated process that is going nowhere, and after much consultation with the previous Human Rights Commission, along with the forums that we have had, a round-table forum would, if anything, slow down the process. Our position might not be disturbing; it might actually help to secure a bill of rights for Northern Ireland, which I advocate strongly.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We are not going to make much progress on this matter. May I take it that there are no other proposals on this issue?

Mr Paisley Jnr: Correct.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We shall move on. I am not opening this up for discussion, but do members have any further comments to make on the Parades Com­mission? Do members have copies of the DUP paper?

The Committee Clerk: Members have been given copies of the DUP paper, and more copies are being made.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): If there are no com­ments, we will move on to the main items for discussion.

Mr Kennedy: May I place on record a few observations that my party has made on parades?

The Ulster Unionist Party agrees that the creation of the parades “controversy” was and remains a strategy used by some in society to carry on the war by another means. We believe also that the Parades Commission should be abolished. It has not aided the resolution of the politically motivated controversy surrounding parades in Northern Ireland.

Our submission to the Quigley Review is broadly in line with that which the DUP has suggested, and we believe that mediation and decisions should be separated. The current designation of a parade as contentious — and we use that word advisedly — must be re-examined, as single objections currently have the potential to create problems. We question also the assertion that:

“any process must be open and transparent and should allow for public scrutiny”.

We need more detail on that.

It is our clear view that, in all determinations, there should be a presumption to allow a parade, and a presumption to allow a counter-protest, as long as it is peaceful. The organisers of any parade should be responsible only for those on parade and should not be held responsible for those who are not under their control. The Ulster Unionist Party Assembly Group believes also that all main thoroughfares should be open to everyone, and that no group has the right to withhold permission from passing along a thoroughfare.

10.30 am

In our view, no one should have to ask the permission of a residents’ group, or any other group, to walk along a road or pass through an area. That could lead to a serious situation, whereby self-appointed groups withhold permission from other groups and organisations, such as the police, the Post Office and other service providers.

That would be a recipe for a serious situation. Therefore, we must overcome the obstacles that are preventing the correct circumstances for the formation of a Government, and any outstanding controversies around parades must be well on their way to being resolved before devolution is restored.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The PFG Committee dealing with law and order issues, which meets on Wednesdays, agreed that this Committee, which is tasked with dealing with rights, equality issues, safeguards and victims, should discuss whether the Assembly might wish to have appointments to the Parades Commission devolved with justice and policing. An attached table from an NIO letter of 15 August on that subject will be circulated. Paragraph 10 of schedule 3 to the 1998 Act deals with public order, and reference is made to the Parades Commission in the “Issues remaining” column.

Mr O’Dowd: Considering that members have just been presented with this, could discussions be deferred to allow us a chance to look at it and to discuss it with our colleagues?

Mr Paisley Jnr: This has been available since February of this year in the Government’s discussion paper, so it should not come as a surprise to anyone.

Mr O’Dowd: I did not say that it was a surprise, and I am not surprised by it. I asked whether it could be deferred to a future discussion, as it had just been presented to the Committee.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Does anyone wish to comment on the table today, even though it is not a substantive issue on the agenda?

Mr Poots: It is more fundamental than appoint­ments to a flawed body; it is about the process under which the running of parades would be conducted. We have made clear proposals on the separation of the mediation role and the determination role. If that matter is not dealt with, regardless of who is appointed to that body, which has not operated or functioned properly in the past, he or she will not change it, because it is impossible to act both as an impartial mediator and as a determiner.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are there any other comments at this stage?

Mrs Long: The context for the devolution of policing and justice is one in which a triple lock should be in place to ensure that it is done under the correct conditions. The proposed target date for the devolution of policing and justice was two years from the restoration of devolution — a period that covers two marching seasons. That would have given us the opportunity to test the stability of the Executive, and it would have given us the chance to see how matters moved during a two-year political cycle. Considering the sensitivity of many of the matters that would be devolved under policing and justice, I am not sure that appointments to the Parades Commission would rank among the most sensitive.

I am not sure whether there are strong arguments for appointments to the Parades Commission being retained as a reserved matter, but we are not particularly concerned about that issue and would be flexible. Other more sensitive policing and justice matters would be transferred at the same time to the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Mr Kennedy: This matter has been referred from the Preparation for Government Committee that deals with law and order issues in order that we might examine whether it is an issue of public order or law and order. My party’s view is that the Parades Commission should be abolished, which rather deals with the issue of appointing anybody to it. There are other issues, such as who might be appointed to adjudicate at tribunals. “Parades” cannot be separated from “Good relations” and “Shared future”, given that main roads presumably constitute a shared space. There are interesting aspects that must be examined in some shape or form.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We will not reach consensus on this issue today. One party has asked for some additional time to discuss the matter, so we should park it for now and return to it later. At Wednesday’s meeting of the Committee, we sought opinions, but we but did not take any decisions. Can we agree to set this issue aside and move on to the next item?

Members indicated assent.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We will now deal with issues under the sub-headings “Equality”, “Good relations” and “Shared future”. We should try to discuss each issue separately, although there will be overlaps. Can I ask members to keep their contributions as short as possible? The DUP has referred to its submission in relation to the “Equality” sub-heading, so perhaps the DUP could open the discussion.

Mr Kennedy: Can you tell us the rules of the game, Mr Chairman? You have asked for short presentations, but we have a detailed presentation. If it is helpful, we will submit a paper in conjunction with that presentation. How long are you allowing for each presentation?

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We suggest a five-minute opening presentation, which will be followed by a general discussion. Do you wish to circulate your paper today?

Mr Kennedy: We will consider that suggestion.

Mrs Long: May I have some clarification? In previous meetings of the Committee, each party gave its presentation in alphabetical rather than a particular party that had expressed an interest go first. You have identified the DUP as having expressed an interest, but members may feel that they have to respond to the DUP’s presentation rather than give their party presentation, followed by a discussion. Are we still simply giving our presentations, albeit in a different format and order?

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We have used both mechanisms. If we go around each party, sometimes parties feel compelled to make a submission. However, if we start with the party that raised the issue, we can short-circuit the process and proceed to a discussion.

Mr Nesbitt: I agree with Naomi. This is my second week of attending the Committee, and there appears to be some volatility in relation to procedure. If there is a lack of clarity, and procedure is inconsistent, we do not know where we are. Each party should give a two- or three-minute introduction, followed by a substantive discussion. I have a fairly lengthy presentation that I wish to give. I agree with the way in which the other Chairman operated last week, when each party made an introductory presentation. You have said that the DUP will be the first party to make a presentation because it has expressed a particular interest in the issue. From a unionist perspective, having an interest in equality is not the sole preserve of the DUP. I support Naomi’s view that we stick to procedure.

Mr Paisley Jnr: If Dermot is itching to go, he can go first.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I did not express a preference for any party.

Mr Nesbitt: Chairman, there were certain implications in what you said.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): They were not intentional.

Mr Poots: We are happy to go with the normal protocol. Mr Nesbitt said that he wanted to know where he was, and that this is his second week at the Committee — it is actually his third. I do not want to confuse him any further.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We do not need to get into the nitty-gritty.

Mr Nesbitt: This is the second week of considering issues that were agreed at the first meeting, at which I was not present for the full time. I am normally in control of what I say.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Let us begin with the Alliance Party.

Mr McCarthy: I am itching to start.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Good. You have five minutes.

Mr McCarthy: First, there are differences between equality matters, a shared future and good relations. Equality and shared future are fundamentally different concepts. Equality is about ensuring fair treatment, access and opportunity for all people, while community relations — or “Good relations” or “Shared future” — are about the quality and nature of the relationship between people, notably in a divided society. There is also, however, a clear relationship between the concepts. The Alliance Party argues that a cohesive and integrated society provides a better environment for promoting equality, and that equality is crucial to building good relations.

In no sense should a lack of sufficient progress on either equality or a shared future be portrayed or regarded as a barrier to making progress on the other. It is possible to progress equality issues in the context of a divided society, through the provision of separate goods, facilities and services. To date, in many respects, that has been the practice in Northern Ireland. A critical mass of people have now realised that “separate but equal” is not sustainable. Equally, it is possible to promote integration in society, even in the absence of sufficient equality. Arguably, that is the case in the USA.

On equality, the Alliance Party is committed to protecting the rights and ensuring the opportunities of every individual. Equality is essential in order to give everyone a stake in society. For the Alliance Party, that means equality of opportunity; equality of access; equality of treatment; equality under the law; and equal citizenship. It is not about forcing an equality of outcome, but if that can occur through recognition of the former, it is welcome.

Those principles govern the Alliance Party’s approach to equality, which is: the individual is the foundation stone of society; all individuals are of equal worth and should be treated as equal citizens; individuals are also members of religious, ethnic, cultural and regional communities; those identifies are open and fluid — people can hold a range of identities and loyalties to different structures and levels of Government; citizens have different needs, and equal treatment requires that full account be taken of those differences; and when equality ignores difference, uniformity of treatment leads to injustice and inequality.

For society to be cohesive, as well as respectful of diversity, it must nurture diversity, while fostering a common sense of belonging and shared identity among its members. The Alliance Party does not believe that there should be a hierarchy in equality. Equality issues in Northern Ireland are overly associated with issues relating to religion and/or political identity. Discrim­ination or other inequalities on the grounds of gender, race, disability and sexual orientation should be of equal concern. Opportunity, a sense of belonging, and fair treatment do not exist evenly and consistently across society. Some individuals are more marginalised than others, due to historical inequalities, discrimination, geography or other obstacles to participation. As a result, it may not be sufficient to apply good public policy generally and hope that all sections of the community will benefit appropriately. The use of neutral policies does not necessarily produce neutral actions or outcomes.

10.45 am

There is, therefore, a case for positive or affirmative action, but we remain opposed to positive discrimination or the use of quotas. We support the targeting of resources towards particular disadvantaged and under-represented sections of the community and certain localities. That is the essence of targeting social need. It is important that vacancies be filled and resources distributed on the basis of the merits of applications. Alliance opposes, however, the use of quotas to fill vacancies or allocate resources, as that inevitably leads to individual cases of greater merit being passed over in order to address the need of someone identified with a disadvantaged group.

With respect to how equality is handled in relation to religion and identity, Alliance is concerned that the overemphasis on groups further institutionalises divisions. Alliance believes in treating all persons as equal citizens but is opposed to institutionalising a false parity of esteem between groups. Furthermore, the assumption of a majority/minority problem is not only simplistic in that it ignores existing diversity, but in that it assumes that discrimination is unidirectional.

The Alliance Party has been a long-standing advocate of fair employment legislation and monitoring in order to ensure equality of opportunities and non-discrimination in the workplace. Fair employment legislation has been very successful in removing discrimination from employment in Northern Ireland and in moving towards a workforce that is more representative of the entire community.

That legislation has been generally successful in creating integrated workforces. The employment sphere is now one of the most integrated aspects of Northern Irish society. That stands in stark contrast to matters such as housing. However, workplace integration has been from the top down — something imposed through regulation rather than having developed organically.

Alliance recognises and understands the need for monitoring of workforces. However, we have concerns about the methodology used to categorise people in pursuit of those objectives. Alliance looks forward to the creation of a single equality Act that would standardise and harmonise upwards the equality protection on all existing grounds.

Finally, all outstanding equality issues can be addressed through public policy; therefore, the Committee has no need to address equality as a barrier to the restoration of devolution. That concludes our submission on equality. We have a further paper on a shared future.

Mr Campbell: For us, this issue is central and goes to the core. It could decide whether progress is made over the next five or 10 years or regress sets in. In the DUP’s view, part of the problem in Northern Ireland has been that equality is a concept that is quite often measured in terms of the past, and because of that we have opposed much of what the Equality Commission has done. We will reserve our opinion until we see how the new Chief Commissioner, the new commissioners and the newly reinstated commissioners perform in practice.

At the moment, the Equality Commission appears to analyse equality in terms of the Northern Ireland of 30 or 40 years ago. Unfortunately, that concept appears to permeate much of society. Our view is that, in devising policies for a shared future, we must look to the twenty-first century and what is likely to happen over the next generation.

A number of facets have to be addressed. One that goes to the core of the community that we represent is the blatantly discriminatory approach that the Equality Commission and the Government have taken to police recruitment. A discriminatory recruitment policy says to the community against whom it discriminates that it is less valued and less respected. It says that, because of denominational background, irrespective of qualifications, members of that community are not welcome to join our Police Service. That is what our society has done. The Equality Commission — a misnomer if ever there was one — should not endorse discrimination, yet that is what it has done. We must try to move away from that. That is why our view of the Equality Commission is as it is, on the basis not just of police recruitment but of much of its work.

We support the concept of dealing with equality issues — whether they be gender, disability, age or religion — in a holistic way. That is a good way in which to make progress, not least from the perspective of reducing the amount of bureaucracy. It has to be said, whether people like it or not, that most of the other issues, such as age, disability and gender, tend to be more individualistic approaches, whereas the religious issue tends to attract a communal approach. The religious breakdown of the community presents the issue of “Shared future” with a huge problem.

That is why we have made a major case consistently and repeatedly, year on year, to the Equality Commission and its predecessors, on, for example, the public sector. The public sector is the largest employer in Northern Ireland. The under-representation of people from the Catholic community applying to the police is less than that for people from the Protestant community applying to the Housing Executive, yet there is a fifty-fifty recruitment requirement placed on one but not the other. Our view is that a fifty-fifty recruitment requirement should be placed on neither, nor on any other body. We agree with the Alliance Party in that respect. We do not believe that quotas are the answer. The merit principle should be applied. Whether it is a Housing Executive applicant or a police applicant, a Civil Service applicant or a private-sector applicant, everyone should be treated on merit. That is a huge issue that will increasingly be central to our concern.

The other, wider issue in looking at a shared future is the criminal and paramilitary activity that prevents better relations evolving among the two main communities and other communities in Northern Ireland. If paramilitary groups control areas, and if political parties recommend to communities that they should not give information to the police when a young female is raped in their community, that is an appalling indictment of those passing for politicians who go down that route. That in itself creates further division and diminishes any hope of good relationships being built for the future.

Mrs O’Rawe: Paragraph 3 on page 16 of the Good Friday Agreement sets out the nature of the statutory equality obligations on public authorities in the North:

“to carry out all their functions with due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity”

across nine grounds, and:

“to draw up statutory schemes showing how they would implement this obligation.”

Paragraph 6 on page 17 refers to the establishment of:

“a new statutory Equality Commission to … advise on, validate and monitor the statutory obligation and … investigate complaints of default.”

Paragraph 7 leaves the choice of whether to establish a dedicated Department of equality up to the Assembly.

The statutory equality duty under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 has not been embraced or used in a consistent way by most public bodies, resulting in failed opportunities to mainstream properly the duty to the degree to which it could have been used to advance equality of opportunity and outcome.

It has, therefore, become a cosmetic, tick-box exercise that many public bodies consider a burden rather than a duty to adhere to a maximum sway. The Equality Commission has the power to investigate public bodies where a potential breach has occurred in equality schemes. However, that power has rarely been used.

Likewise, the commission has supported few investigations brought by directly affected parties. On the rare occasion that the commission initiates an investigation and finds a public body to be in breach of its equality scheme, it has limited powers to compel the public body to comply. It can only refer the matter to the British Secretary of State.

Sinn Féin believes that the Equality Commission must use its powers of investigation and enforcement to greater effect. Therefore, consideration must be given to amending the Northern Ireland Act 1998 in order to provide the commission with the power to compel public bodies to comply. That would give the commission more teeth.

Sinn Féin wants to see further designations of public bodies such as the BBC, the DPP, the Treasury, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and the British Secretary of State. The British Government must establish an independent recruitment and selection panel when making appointments to the Equality Commission. The commission should be representative and balanced in its composition.

The commission must be resourced in order to provide legal assistance, where appropriate, in discrimination cases. Alternatively, legal aid should be provided in such cases.

I want to raise some points under the sub-headings “Good relations” and “Shared future” later in the meeting. Thank you, Chairman.

Ms Lewsley: I want to raise three points about equality. The first is the issue of need. The agreement makes it clear that need must be targeted objectively. If real need is targeted, all communities — whether they are Catholic, Protestant, unionist, nationalist or from any other background — will be enhanced. Perceived need can also be dealt with. There is underachievement in educational attainment in Protestant communities. The SDLP believes that, by tackling need, that issue will be addressed. However, the proportion of Catholics who leave school with no qualifications is higher overall and is, of course, a fast track to unemployment. It is important that that problem is also tackled.

Secondly, there can be no regression in equality laws; those laws are a given. The SDLP will consider the opportunities to enhance the laws. However, it will not support any dilution of them.

An integrated equality agenda is needed. That should be brought about through a single equality Bill that harmonises our laws upwards as far as is practicable. During the lifetime of the previous Assembly, its two junior Ministers had hoped to take Northern Ireland into the lead with the single equality Bill. Unfortunately, because of EU regulations on age and sexual orientation, the Assembly decided to defer the Bill. I hope that it can be moved on.

Equality of opportunity can be created through the realisation of the promise of section 75. In order to do that, the standard of equality impact assessments must be improved. Often, they lack statistics and rigour; they should focus more on key policies. A strategy for the implementation of section 75 would help.

Thirdly, the commitment to eradicate unemployment differentials referred to in the agreement must be realised. The unemployment differential in 1971 was 2·5; it has now been brought down to 1·8. I want any differential to be eradicated. Likewise, there are differentials in economic inactivity. There are many high-unemployment black spots. A process to deal with those problems must be introduced. The Govern­ment must also take responsibility centrally to ensure that differentials in housing allocation are dealt with.

Progress has been made. However, there is more to do. Equality of opportunity is not only a right in principle but will help to build a more harmonious and cohesive community.

Mr Nesbitt: As Danny mentioned, our paper will be circulated before any substantive discussions. I want to make a few introductory comments.

I agree entirely with Kieran in the sense that equality is viewed primarily as a religious domain. It is much more pervasive than that. It also covers race, gender, and so on.

11.00 am

Having said that, however, I want to make the point that a religious dimension has permeated relationships in Northern Ireland. One side of the community feels that it has been, and still is, unfairly treated — if not discriminated against — in the jobs market, as Michael Ferguson’s comments evidenced last week. I have no doubt that Michael Ferguson holds his views sincerely, but they were a reflection of Sinn Féin comments that are often repeated. Sinn Féin wants that issue to be dealt with, and I will come to how it could be addressed in a moment.

Equally, unionism has concerns, which Gregory has mentioned and with which I agree. Two key employ­ment concerns must be addressed, and those tie in with ‘A Shared Future: Policy and Strategic Framework for Good Relations in Northern Ireland’.

Last week, I mentioned Darby and Knox, the authors of the consultation paper on ‘A Shared Future’. Without resolving what is or is not the labour market’s real position, it is difficult to move to a shared future and a society at ease with itself.

Moreover, there has been a “grammar creep”. Words such as “neutrality” have crept into the equality debate, although not in a legal sense. That said, the word has been absorbed into the lexicon — people talk about it. I am not the sort of loyalist who rams his loyalty down another person’s throat. I am not one to wear flags or badges. I am a citizen of the United Kingdom. I do not have to flaunt my citizenship or be triumphalist. The reality is that we are in the United Kingdom; that is the legal position. It is not a neutral position. The United Kingdom is a legal entity, and respect should be given to that.

Little words are important. I noted that Pat used the phrase “in the North”. That may be a euphemism, but it has a political overtone. Whether people recognise that Northern Ireland is or is not a region of the United Kingdom, it is in law.

Those aspects are relevant to notions of equality and parity of esteem. We must subscribe to section 75(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. That is the law. We must:

“have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity”.

The law is important. The word “need” is included in subsection (1). It does not say that we “have to do it always and every time”. The law says “need”. Therefore, before we do something, we must establish the “need”.

Finally, more often than not, I find that commentary on equality is based more on emotion than on evidence. As adults in the political process, we must use evidence to judge positions on equality. We must determine, by correctly interpreting evidence, who is hard done by or disadvantaged. Emotion must be taken out and evidence used.

Chairman, those are just a few opening comments to start the debate. I will return to the issue shortly.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are there any proposals or any issues that members want to question?

Ms Lewsley: I would like to propose that we agree that need should be targeted objectively.

Mr Nesbitt: I have no problem with those two words — “need” and “objectively”.

Mr Paisley Jnr: What about “targeted”?

Mr Nesbitt: And, of course, “targeted”. [Laughter.]

Mr Campbell: I do not have a problem with that, but could we have it explained a little more? It is a nice cliché; it sounds OK, and I am sure that it will read fine in Hansard, but what does it actually mean?

Ms Lewsley: For a long time in Northern Ireland we have addressed need on the basis that if one side gets something, the other side gets it too. I agree that there is an issue with the educational underachievement of young Protestants in working-class areas, but, on the other hand, educational underachievement is also an issue for young Catholic people, who are leaving school with fewer qualifications, or none at all. Those two areas of need must be addressed objectively. It should not simply be the case that because underachievement has been identified in a Protestant area, the Department of Education gives out money across the board. Need must be targeted objectively.

Mr Paisley Jnr: If we agree to equality, does delivery not then become the issue? The concept of targeting need objectively then becomes, as Gregory says, more of a cliché than a mechanism. We should have delivery mechanisms to ensure that equality exists and is delivered.

Mrs O’Rawe: If we are to have equality, we must have strong legislation and enforcement. I have three proposals, which I mentioned earlier. First, the Northern Ireland Act 1998 must be amended to provide the Equality Commission with the power to compel public bodies to comply with their statutory duties. Furthermore, the British Secretary of State and public bodies such as the BBC, the DPP, the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence should be designated under the 1998 Act and subject to those statutory duties. Thirdly, the British Government must establish an independent recruitment and selection panel for making appointments to the Equality Commission, and the commission should be representative and balanced in its composition.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Any comments on those three proposals?

Mr Paisley Jnr: I think that Dermot mentioned offensive —

Mr Nesbitt: Sorry, but could you speak up?

Mr Paisley Jnr: It is not often I am asked to speak up, but I will.

Mr Kennedy: It is not often that a Paisley is asked to speak up. [Laughter.]

Mr Poots: He is not the man his father is.

Mr Nesbitt: It was a genuine request.

Mr Kennedy: Your father would be ashamed of you for talking quietly.

Mr Paisley Jnr: He would be ashamed of you as well. At least I know who my da is.

Mr Campbell: That was a joke.

Mr Paisley Jnr: I am not going to talk about inflammatory language. To move to a point on which I would like some clarification: I assume that references to the DPP should really be references to the Public Prosecution Service, as the DPP no longer exists here.

Mr O’Dowd: We accept the clarification.

Mr Nesbitt: When a phrase is spoken quickly, one often hears words that one empathises with. However, on reading the same phrase in Hansard, one can find that it contains little words with which one does not totally agree. Ms Lewsley was very clear in asking for “need” and “objectivity”. That was all she was asking for. Before I can agree or disagree, I would like to hear precisely what I am being asked to agree to, and it would be good if I could have the written words in front of me as well. That is a serious question; I am not trying to be trite.

Mrs O’Rawe: All public bodies should be designated to comply with section 75. They are spending public money, have a workforce, and are operating outside the framework, so they need to come within the guidelines. It is as simple as that.

Mr Nesbitt: I have a slight difficulty with a blanket designation of “all public bodies”, because “public bodies” is very general, and perhaps some should not be designated. I also have a stronger underlying problem. Sinn Féin said that we need “strong legislation”. Section 75 states that we must:

“have due regard to the need”.

When I hear someone say that something is needed, I say: “For what purpose?” Not a simple process — we must have something. What is the problem that has been identified that needs to be addressed? Has the problem been identified? Patricia Lewsley said “objectivity”, which means evidence. Where is the evidence of the need? If clear evidence of need is objectively established, we implement either primary legislation or statutory instruments. To a blanket “all public bodies” and “we need strong legislation”, I say: “Hold on. Let’s see first of all whether the need has been established.”

Mr O’Dowd: If Dermot wishes to identify public bodies that he believes should not be included in equality legislation, perhaps that is where the debate should start. Any public body that is spending public money and implementing policies that affect the public should surely be affected by equality legislation. To me, that is a basic principle of equality. If any public body is allowed to opt out of equality legislation, surely that is a flaw in itself.

If a body receives money, and that body is making decisions that affect people’s everyday lives, those decisions need to be made on an equitable basis. Equality is a double-edged sword. Equality legislation is there to protect the rights of the unionist community and the nationalist community, the rights of those from a different racial group or of a different sexual orientation, the rights of people with a disability, etc. All those sections of the community need to be protected, so if a public body is spending public money, I do not see any reason — and my party does not see any reason — why it should not be governed by equality legislation.

Mr Poots: We had this discussion last week when we were talking about appointments to the Human Rights Commission. Others shot down my suggestion that a deputy chief commissioner should be appointed. We have bodies that are supposed to be dealing with equality, and, from where we stand, we feel that our point of view is not expressed by any of the commissioners on the Equality Commission. Others could probably say the same.

How can we have an Equality Commission that is not reflective of the views of the people of Northern Ireland? It simply cannot command the support of the people of Northern Ireland if its body of com­missioners is not at all reflective of the community.

Mr O’Dowd: Mr Poots makes a fair enough point, and there are concerns around that. Our third proposal of the morning is that the British Government need to establish an independent recruitment and selection panel when making appointments to the Equality Commission, and that the commission should be representative and balanced in its composition. I hope that that covers the concerns that have been raised.

Mr Campbell: There are a number of related but slightly separate issues here. The composition of the Equality Commission and other public bodies sends out a signal. When it is the wrong signal, that creates the wrong context, and it is then difficult to return to some sort of parity. That needs to be rectified, and it has been an ongoing sore. Let us be clear about this, however: if we rectify that sore — if the composition of the Equality Commission is remedied in such a way that 98% of the community says that it is reasonably reflective of the wider community — but the Equality Commission still implements policies that go in the wrong direction, that is not the answer.

Over the past 10 to 15 years, section 75 has not provided safeguards to a section of the community in Northern Ireland. In my opening remarks I referred to the public sector, where the situation has become worse rather than better, in spite of section 75. The intrinsic equality legislation should have made things better, but in some cases it has made the situation worse.

11.15 am

I want to make a proposal that, I hope, can achieve some form of consensus: equality measures must be implemented in a manner that addresses current trends in order to avert future problems. We must try to distance ourselves from what happened 40, 50, 60 or 70 years ago. We must work on what is happening now so that the future will not be worse.

I refer again to the fifty-fifty recruitment policy in the Police Service. If it is harder to recruit Protestants to the Housing Executive than it is to recruit Catholics to the Police Service, why is there a quota system for one organisation but not the other? The DUP argues that there should be no quota system for anyone, anywhere, but that is an intrinsic problem. The policing issue, set beside other sections of the public sector, has not been addressed by section 75. If we simply say that section 75 should be implemented more rigorously, the logical outcome for my delegation and for my party is that in five years’ time, the situation will be even worse than it is now — and it is bad enough now. We must address the current problem to try to prevent the situation becoming even worse in the future.

Mr Brolly: We are in danger of sectarianising equality. Equality is an objective concept that includes everybody. It is not about equality for Catholics but not for Protestants, or equality for unionists but not for nationalists. We want an equality mechanism, and we want people who understand, and are passionate about, equality to man that mechanism. We do not represent the Catholic community — we do not have a mandate from the Vatican to do that. We want to talk objectively about equality for everybody. I would be equally annoyed at members of the Protestant community being discriminated against as at members of the Catholic community being discriminated against.

Unfortunately, we cannot ignore history in relation to the policing issue. Séamus Mallon described the membership of the RUC as being 92% Protestant and 100% unionist. I am not terribly happy about fifty-fifty recruitment or interfering with recruitment, but we must find some way of creating, in the not too distant future, a police force that will command everybody’s respect. I am not saying that Protestant members of the police force should not be respected, or are not respectable, but in relation to equality, it is the two major communities that are involved. Historically, it is about the disadvantages of Catholics as opposed to Protestants, and it would have been impossible for the situation to have been otherwise since this state was set up to be a Protestant state for a Protestant people.

I agree with Mr Campbell that we are a long way down the line compared to 40 or 50 years ago, when Protestant businesses were entitled to put notices in their windows saying: “Help needed. Catholics need not apply”. We have come a long way since those times. The wheel may be turning quite quickly in the other direction, and in the next 10, 15 or 20 years, we may have to deal with more cases of discrimination against the Protestant community than against the Catholic community. In our discussions, we should stick with the objective concept of equality.

Mrs Long: Sometimes when members discuss equality issues, the language used can create a permanency to the divisions in society. For example, there have been several references to the “Catholic community” and the “Protestant community”. I am not aware that those are two mutually exclusive com­munities. Certainly, the community to which I belong includes Protestants, Catholics, and people of many other religions and of none. The notion of a “Catholic community” and a “Protestant community” is bizarre.

Such references are often used as shorthand for some kind of political aspiration that people may hold. The figures show that a significant number of people who are Protestant — around 27% — do not consider themselves to be unionist; a higher percentage of Catholics consider themselves not to be nationalist. People’s identities are fluid, and that must be reflected in our discussions.

Issues of discrimination, balance and trying to achieve a reflective workforce are also more complicated than simply considering two identities, Protestant and Catholic, and trying to balance them. A significant number of people do not subscribe to either definition. Those people must also be treated equally when applying for jobs and must not suffer from discrimination, either deliberately or simply by being overlooked in the statistics.

We must also look at what those definitions are taken as shorthand for. As I said, Protestant and Catholic will often be taken as shorthand for unionist and nationalist or loyalist and republican. Fifty-fifty recruitment, for example, has been successful in recruiting more Catholics to the Police Service, but I question how successful it has been in reflecting the balance across the entire community — from loyalism, through unionism, those who choose not be part of either bloc, and nationalism to republicanism. It has probably not achieved that at all. If we are going to have monitoring, it must be based on something substantive; not on identities imposed on individuals but on identities that people choose for themselves.

There has also been an issue of group rights and protecting sections of the community. We had this discussion last week in relation to human rights and the right of an individual to not be treated as part of a minority group. That is an important right. Therefore, group rights are an anathema as far as the Alliance Party is concerned.

Our view is that, as with human rights, equality is concerned with the treatment of the individual. A workforce can be monitored to ensure that it is representative, but there should not be this process, which unfortunately still exists, of pigeonholing people in order to fit what is really a binary system of monitoring equality.

Mr Campbell said that, even if the Equality Commission were more reflective than he considers it to be at present, it would still not be acceptable if it took the wrong decisions. Who is the arbiter of what are the right and wrong decisions?

Mr Campbell: I do not think that I mentioned decisions. I said that the policies of the Equality Commission are wrong, as well as its composition. By policies, I mean, for example, the policy of fifty-fifty recruitment for the police. The under-representation of Catholic recruits to the police is “less worse” than that of Protestant recruits to the Housing Executive, yet the commission says nothing about the Housing Executive. We want to see the commission’s double standards on such policies changed, as well as its composition.

Mr D Bradley: I want to comment on the fifty-fifty recruitment policy in the Police Service. The Patten Report recognised the under-representation of Catholics in the police, for which there were various reasons, not least the targeting by paramilitary groups of Catholics who were members of the police force.

Mr Campbell: Killing them; not just targeting them.

Mr D Bradley: And the murdering of them, yes. The ethos of the police at the time, to which many nationalists felt that they could not subscribe, was also an issue. Indeed, in itself the low representation of Catholics in the police discouraged other Catholics from joining. We all recognise that society needs a police force that has the support of all sections of the community and in which all sections of the community are represented in proportion.

The Patten proposals attempted to address all the aspects of the policing service that were in need of reform, including the under-representation of Catholics in the service, so that all sections of the community could give their support to the police. The fifty-fifty recruitment policy was the key element of the proposals. It was aimed at creating a proportionate representation of all sections of the community. I believe that a key element for the future of any society is that all sections of the community are represented in the police in proportion, and that all sections give their support to the police. That goes to the very heart of the future stability of society, and justifies the fifty-fifty recruitment policy.

The policy has been successful. The application rate for Catholics has been between 35% and 38%, and there have always been enough suitably qualified Catholics to fill the quota. The percentage of Catholics joining has increased from 8·3% to over 20%, and by the year 2010 will have reached 30%. Fifty-fifty recruitment is only a temporary measure to alleviate a particular situation. It is operating successfully, and it will come to an end.

Mrs Long: Only history will be able to judge — if even it can — whether it was fifty-fifty recruitment or the removal of threat that led to the increase in appli­cations from the Catholic section of our population.

Mr Bradley says that all sections are represented. Does he accept the point I made earlier: that republicans, for example, are still under-represented, if represented at all, in the Police Service? Ethnic minorities are collected in with “Protestant and other”, and therefore are discriminated against in the recruitment process.

Mr Paisley Jnr: There is no such thing as “Protestant and other”.

Mrs Long: They are grouped together, so the issue there is that ethnic minorities are not treated in the same way and are not promoted. The policy has addressed only one part of the imbalance in the police. The Alliance Party has been opposed to it from the outset. There remains a question as to whether it has addressed imbalance. Mr Bradley referred to “all” sections of the community; I am not sure that the policy has addressed that at all.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I remind members that the Committee is dealing with policing and justice matters in another format. We do not want to get too deep in discussion about it.

Ms Lewsley: I am a bit confused. You asked for proposals, and we have now discussed three or four separate proposals. I agree with Mr Campbell about addressing current trends. He referred to the problem with recruitment to the Housing Executive; I hope that he would agree that it is not just about under-representation in the workforce of the Housing Executive. It is a much wider question of the whole Civil Service, even the Equality Commission itself. The issue is one of under-representation in the workforce across the board.

As for the Alliance Party’s stance on group rights, I believe that to ignore groups is to ignore the patterns and trends about which Mr Campbell talked, and which can help address some of the inequalities and injustices.

11.30 am

Looking at all of the issues that have been raised, I think that the overarching proposal that I put in the first place would address much of the need objectively. That is what the SDLP wants. Rather than have a divisive climate of lobbying and to seek support for particular communities, we want to develop common ground and an approach based on evidence of need and the implementation of policies across the board.

If we could reach consensus on the basic principle of targeting need objectively, we could address many of the issues that we have talked about around this table.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Perhaps members would address that issue. We have five proposals in front of us now.

Mr Nesbitt: At this stage, I should table my proposal. I welcome Sinn Féin’s talk of speaking objectively about matters. It rightly talks about the danger of sectarianising issues. However, we do monitor the employment patterns of Protestants and Catholics. I also agree with Patricia that it goes much wider than the Housing Executive. We should have a common ground for evidence. I have genuinely tried to approach the issue in that way.

I have a dilemma. Equality is a very important and emotive subject for all of us around this table. More often than not we have tried to address it by way of the megaphone; this is the first time that we have sat around a table discussing it, and that is good. My dilemma is that, in being objective, we cannot at the same time be brief, because we need evidence to consider.

Language can create division, and I will give you an example. Mr Brolly used the phrase:

“a Protestant state for a Protestant people.”

The Prime Minister actually said:

“a Protestant Parliament and a Protestant people.”

Language is important. The context was that his counterpart in Dublin had referred to a Catholic Parliament and a Catholic people. It must all be put in context.

I shall ask the officials to circulate a paper. I do not want members to grimace and grunt, because I am not going to speak to the paper at length. I will go through it quickly and highlight some points. My aim is to put the paper on the table for the parties to note. I am not asking for discussion or agreement. I would welcome a bilateral meeting with any party, subsequent to this meeting, to discuss the content of the paper.

I wish to talk objectively — words that have been used by Sinn Féin. I wish to reach a common understanding of the problem on the basis of evidence, from which we can derive mechanisms to go forward. I will leave the paper with the parties and go through it quickly. I hope that, in noting the paper under the auspices of this meeting, parties will come back to me and seek a bilateral to discuss it.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are members content for the paper to be circulated?

Members indicated assent.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do you wish to talk to the paper now?

Mr Nesbitt: Yes.

Mr Paisley Jnr: I want to make some points.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I shall bring in Mr Paisley now.

Mr Paisley Jnr: First, for the purposes of Hansard, I want to say that my earlier comments were, of course, in jest. I am sure that people will understand that.

People have talked today about institutionalising sectarianism. It is a fact that the current process, since the Belfast Agreement, has certainly institutionalised and copper-fastened sectarianism in a number of the issues on which we have already touched.

We have an institution here that relies on sectarianism. For example, we have to have a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister who must be drawn from particular communities, which, of course, is short for saying that we must have a Protestant and a Catholic in office. Whether we like it or not, that is what the legislation allows for.

The Assembly relies on cross-community votes — so many Catholics and so many Prods must vote for something in order for it to be agreed. Even the process of appointments in the Assembly relies on sectarianism. If we are really going to drill down into the issue of equality, some people may have some real soul-searching to do. Our form of Assembly, our form of government, and our institutions and the legislation governing them really should be changed if we are to move away from the institutionalisation of a sectarian regime.

There has been some comment about public appoint­ments. Gregory Campbell made a proposal about how we should deal with public appointments. It is important to put on record that the current process of many public appointments deliberately discriminates against the unionist community. Mr Poots mentioned the Equality Commission — we would be hard-pressed to identify anyone on that body who could truly be described as representing the community from which I come. The Human Rights Commission has a number of unionist members of various types, but, again, its overall balance could not be described as reflecting the unionist community.

Take other public appointments such as the Police Ombudsman. I remember when that legislation was going through Westminster. The Hayes Report proposed that a senior or retired High Court judge with a significant level of experience could be regarded as neutral enough to be in charge of Police Ombudsman work. The appointment went to someone who, irrespective of her ability, is the wife of a prominent member of a political party. That does not augur well for people’s confidence in independent, impartial, equal and fair appointments. It has been said before, but I cannot imagine a situation in which there would not be a hue and cry if the Police Ombudsman happened to be the wife of a DUP member. I think that people would be going mad about that.

We have the reverse of that situation when unionists are appointed to bodies. People from the republican community are inspired by Sinn Féin to oppose those appointments. If orangemen are appointed to bodies, they are opposed because they are orangemen. If, for example, a victim of an IRA atrocity is appointed to a body — think of the interim Commissioner for Victims and Survivors of the Troubles — Sinn Féin opposes that too. There has to be some balance in equality when it comes to public appointments.

Quite a lot has been said about police appointments and the issue of equality. We should identify the fact that the discrimination clauses in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 — they are not fifty-fifty clauses, they are discrimination clauses; that is what they are called in the legislation — cause long-term damage to both sections of the community. For example, they cause significant upset to people who get into the merit pool, know that they are qualified and know that their scores put them higher up their section of the merit pool, but who do not get appointed because of their religion. I know of over 1,000 Protestants who have been turned down for employment in the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) only because they are Protestant, yet they were higher up the merit pool than others who were appointed. I know of 230 Roman Catholics who are in the same position.

Therefore the discrimination clauses cause significant, deep-seated resentment in the community and in those people who want to be police officers. They do not want to be Catholic or Protestant police officers; they want to be police officers, and it causes resentment and affects the morale of the Police Service.

If a person gets into the PSNI as a result of fifty-fifty recruitment — I will use that misnomer for the example — there is a chance that his or her promotion could also be decided on that basis. There is now an expectation that an officer’s promotion prospects in the Police Service should reflect the community’s demographics, or be based on what church the officer attends on Sunday, rather than on his or her skill, ability or length of service. That would be disastrous, and we must pull back from a policy that is affecting morale and that has a long-term and deep-seated effect on police officers.

Police officers in California were in a similar situation when equality legislation stipulated racial equality of appointments to the police force there. Both black officers and white officers will say that the long-term effect of any sort of discrimination is resented within the service; therefore we should move away from that.

People may claim that 50:50 recruitment is a principle, but it is not. If it were, it would have to be applied to every appointment in the organisation. However, parties here that claim that it is a principle voted for the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, which allowed for the recruitment of 1,000 part-time reservists on the merit principle alone. If fifty-fifty recruitment is not a principle for appointing part-time reservists, why is it a principle for appointing regular officers? That must be addressed, because under the current legislation all future part-time reservists could end up being drawn from one section of the community because its applicants were better qualified. Alternatively, recruits could end up being drawn from a mixed section of the community, which would more than likely be the case. However, they will be recruited on one basis — merit — and there will be no question about their appointment because of that.

There is also a significant depletion of detective ranks in Northern Ireland, but the principle is not that all detectives should be recruited on the basis of their religion. They will be recruited on merit. On that basis, all the parties on the Policing Board — even those that claim that fifty-fifty recruitment is a principle — voted to ensure that the lateral entry of detectives from England, Scotland and Wales into the PSNI should be on merit. They agreed that those appointments should not be influenced by religion or identity. Therefore the fifty-fifty recruitment principle appears to be flexible: one that must be observed for the big stage, but not for other important appointments. One should recognise that it is not a principle; rather it is something that is causing significant damage.

Reference has been made to the past and the part played by the Royal Ulster Constabulary George Cross (RUC GC). Significant numbers of people from the Roman Catholic community have played a large part in the PSNI and in the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The father of the current leader of the SDLP — a Roman Catholic — played a significant role in the Police Service, and did not mind that it was the RUC. In the past, there has been a Roman Catholic Chief Constable of the RUC, and that is often brushed over. Many officers from different sections of the community have played a significant role in the RUC. The hurt around the RUC is a straw man that is used for political purposes, and it has done much to damage community relations in Northern Ireland.

I remember watching the SDLP conference — I think that it was last year’s — and an invited guest called for fifty-fifty recruitment to be scrapped. I doubt whether the SDLP would have given a person a platform to go against its policy.

Nonetheless, I do not believe that the people who declared fifty-fifty recruitment to be the great totem think that the underlying principle is to protect a certain community; it exists for political reasons. The issue affects the mindset of Protestants, who feel that their noses are being rubbed in it. That should not be so. Nationalists should recognise that fact and start to disengage themselves from the notion that they need fifty-fifty recruitment.

11.45 am

It is important to clarify that fifty-fifty recruitment does not mean 50% Protestant and 50% Roman Catholic appointments. In the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, the sections that deal with discrimination allow, and guarantee, that 50% of regular officer appoint­ments be given to Roman Catholics. The 2000 Act gives no such guarantee to any other section of the community; it simply states that the appointments are for others. Therefore, the Protestant community feels doubly outdone on that issue.

Sinn Féin has stated today that it does not speak on behalf the Roman Catholic community and does not wish to discriminate. Its members wish to discuss equality. Certainly, when the IRA bombed factories, it did not discriminate against workers. IRA activity did not discriminate — it injured everyone in Northern Ireland. Sinn Féin’s talk about equality is simply talk. It is important to put that on the record.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We must move on because several members wish to speak — John O’Dowd, Naomi Long and Derek Hussey.

Mr Nesbitt: I thought that I was about to start.

Mr Paisley Jnr: I thought that Dermot was going to go next. I am just the warm-up act.

Mr O’Dowd: I had indicated before the paper was distributed —

Mr Nesbitt: I thought that I had said that I would make my presentation next, Mr Chairman. You said that Ian could make his presentation while the paper was being distributed. The paper has now been distributed.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Go ahead.

Mr Nesbitt: I am simply following procedure.

Ian said that we should drill down into the issue of equality, which was a good introduction. I shall be very brief. I will leave the paper with members, because it will be easier to comment if they have the paper in front of them. I will speak to the paper, and it would be helpful if members could follow the pages as I refer to them.

Mr Paisley Jnr: Mr Nesbitt indicated earlier that he intended to make a proposal. Will he make the proposal before he speaks to the paper or afterwards?

Mr Nesbitt: I am not asking for agreement on the paper, but I will make the proposal, which contains nothing sinister, later.

Page 3 of the paper states that we must demonstrate the effectiveness of the equality policy. It is also stated that, no later than February 2006, the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference was discussing the unemployment differential.

On page 4, a table is reproduced from David J Smith and Gerald Chambers’s ‘Inequality in Northern Ireland (Oxford 1991)’, which states that 27% of Catholics and 21% of Protestants viewed discrimination/rights as one of the causes of the troubles. That is a clear identification that it is perceived that discrimination/rights was one of the causes of the problems.

On page 5 there are quotations from: a Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights (SACHR) report, ‘Religious and Political Discrimination and Equality of Opportunity in Northern Ireland: Report on Fair Employment (October 1987)’; a Government White Paper, published in March 1998; a Northern Ireland Affairs Committee Special Report, ‘The Operation of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989: Ten Years On’; and the ‘Report of the Taskforce on Employability and Long-Term Unemployment’, published in December 2002. All those quotations point up equality of opportunity and how that will improve community relations.

I want to highlight a quotation on page 6, to which I referred last week. In John Darby and Colin Knox’s ‘A Shared Future (Consultation Responses)’, it is stated:

“there cannot be good relations until there is equality of opportunity”.

“Good relations” deals with a shared future.

I want to mention a few political quotations. On page 6, a quote from Caitríona Ruane states that discrimination is “rife” and that Catholics are twice as likely to be unemployed as Protestants. A quotation from Gregory Campbell states:

“22,000 more Roman Catholics and 5,000 fewer Protestants in work … discrimination against our people has to stop.”

Those are genuine views held by both those people. The two sides of the community say that discrimination exists. We must examine the evidence.

Mr Campbell: Will Mr Nesbitt take a point of information?

Mr Nesbitt: Yes; no problem.

Mr Campbell: That quotation is accurate, but the figures come from the Equality Commission rather than it being my view.

Mr Nesbitt: I do not doubt that. My point is that we are taking data, whether those are unemployment differentials in Sinn Féin’s case or employment trends in unionism’s case, to point up discrimination claims on both sides. Something must be done. This is a problem that we need help with if we are to solve it.

On page 7 of the paper, the 1987 SACHR report is again cited, recommending targets for the reduction of the unemployment differential. There is another SACHR reference on page 8. This time it is a quotation from a 1997 report:

“ Government should publicly adopt realistic targets for the reduction of … unemployment differentials”.

There are two quotations on page 8 that I thought would show up a dichotomy. On the one hand, UNISON, the public-sector-workers’ organisation, said in 1997 that Government policy:

“failed to remove … unemployment differentials and discrimination”.

Against that, as an antithesis, the Queen’s Speech of 14 May 1997 said that the Government would:

“combat discrimination in the workplace”.

Inez McCormack of UNISON might not view the latter as an antithetical source, but they are different ends of the spectrum. Both quotations flag up the question of discrimination.

What was the Government’s response to the comments? On page 9 of my paper, the Government said in the introduction to their response to the 1997 SACHR report that they were going to introduce policies:

“centring on jobs and employment”.

They saw that as the problem and planned to:

“put in place a new statutory framework requiring the public sector to promote equality of opportunity”,

namely the law that Pat O’Rawe referred to earlier, which was section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

The Government also said that they were going to recruit directly from the unemployed. They were hoping that that would reduce the unemployment differential, and indeed, that they were going to have:

“benchmark measures for the future reduction of the unemployment differential.”

Let us look briefly at some evidence, and then I will leave the paper for members to reflect on. A problem has been identified by a wide range of sources with varied views, and the Government have implemented policies to try to alleviate the perceived problem.

The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee heard evidence in 1999 on that important issue. It also concluded that benchmark measures should be in place. Indeed, its report said that its next review in five years’ time would consider any deviation between the benchmarks established and the available data. However, the Committee has never looked at it again. The benchmark measures for the unemployment differential have never been established, despite a commitment to do just that.

On page 11 of the paper, a Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) briefing note is quoted. NISRA raised much wider issues than discrimination, talking of:

“personal characteristics such as age, marital status, number of children, family experience of unemployment, housing tenure and educational qualifications”.

In other words, it identifies the background that can influence whether a person gets a job. The briefing note concluded that there were no specific actions that Government could take to address the unemployment differential, and that it was:

“not actually a valid measure of … discrimination in employment”.

The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) had research conducted by Tony Dignan. On page 13 of his research he concurred with NISRA’s view on the impact of Government policy on the unemployment differential measured as a ratio.

On page 14 of the paper, I reference the 2004 book, ‘Fair Employment in Northern Ireland: A Generation On’. It was sponsored by the Equality Commission and was written by a wide-ranging group of academics, which the Equality Commission described as a “distinguished panel”. An important element of its remit was social mobility. That dimension led to what was described as:

“perhaps one of the most significant conclusions for this book as a whole”.

That is the authors of the book talking; it is not unionism or nationalism.

Social mobility means how well one can move through the social classes. On page 14, under ‘Social Mobility’, there is a quotation from ‘Fair Employment in Northern Ireland: A Generation On’. It reads:

“Much of the claims of discrimination being voiced by the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association could be seen as claims of adverse social mobility”;

in other words, people cannot move up through the classes.

Mr O’Dowd: Does the fact that one cannot move upward not prove discrimination?

Mr Nesbitt: No. The book is saying —

Mr O’Dowd: Dermot is saying that those who were being discriminated against were unable to move upward because they were socially dysfunctional, or whatever. What is he trying to say?

Mr Nesbitt: All I am doing is establishing a measure of objectivity as to whether there is discrimination. The book was saying that if one cannot move up the social ladder, one is probably being discriminated against.

Mr O’Dowd: That proves discrimination.

Mr Nesbitt: No. If one cannot move up the social ladder, that proves discrimination.

Mr O’Dowd: Then the question is why one cannot move up the ladder.

Mr Nesbitt: We have to see whether or not one can move up socially. That is the point that I am making. I am establishing the measurement criterion.

The answer is given in the diagram on page 15 of my paper. Without going into detail, present occupation is determined more by first job and educational qualifications than by anything else. A first job is determined by years of education, by qualifications and, to a much lesser extent, by age. Age has a value of 0·089 as opposed to 0·390 for years of education and 0·219 for educational qualifications.

Religion can be tracked on the diagram by moving left from first job to years of education. The number of years of education available is determined by the father’s occupation, which can depend on his education, which, in turn, depended on his religion. I am not saying that religion is not a factor.

Mr Poots: Thank you for explaining that, Dermot.

Mr Paisley Jnr: It is a two-generational thing as well?

Mr Nesbitt: It is at least two-generational.

The book concluded:

“religion ceased in the 1990s to have a direct independent effect upon an individual’s social position.”

The significance of that conclusion was that it was based on data collected in 1996 and 1997, at a time when SACHR, the Government, the Queen in her speech and others, were committing themselves to combating discrimination. The evidence shows that social mobility, as a measure of the presence of discrimination, is not directly linked to religion. There is, perhaps, an indirect link, back down the generations, but whether a person gets a job and moves up the social ladder is not now affected by religion. The evidence shows that.

I shall not look at the worked examples; they are there for members to examine in detail on pages 16 to 19. However, at the bottom of page 20, there is an important point, which highlights the problem between Gregory on my side of the House and Sinn Féin’s side of the House.

I am not going to look at pages 22-24 in detail. They simply show, from an evidential point of view, that if the proportion of Catholics who are unemployed is twice the proportion of Protestants who are unemployed, it does not mean that Catholics are twice as likely to be unemployed as Protestants. The absolute number of people who are unemployed does not have a bearing on likelihood of being unemployed. The likelihood of a person getting or not getting a job depends on the person who applies and whether he or she is appointed. It is probability analysis.

12.00 noon

At the bottom of page 24 I have the heading “Poverty and Disadvantage”. The latest Government report shows that poverty and disadvantage are manifested in large measure by being unemployed. Unemployment is one of the single most important measures of disadvantage; my party accepts that. We accept that there is more disadvantage where there is a greater proportion of unemployment. The question is whether it is discrimination and how to deal with it, which is a different matter.

I am not saying that there is unfair discrimination. I am only pointing out what the data says. Look at pages 25 and 26. Do not go into the data, but if you read it you can follow it. Go straight through to page 28 — there are only 30 pages.

Mr Campbell: There are 31 pages in my copy.

Mr Nesbitt: Yes, well, OK.

Mr O’Dowd: That is not the only inaccuracy in it.

Mr Nesbitt: The first page is just the title.

I will leave you with the table on page 28. Logically, if 40% of applicants are from one denomination you would probably expect 40% of the appointments to be from that denomination — if there is equality of opportunity, and if they have equal education and equal experience, you would expect the grouping selected to be reflective of the grouping who apply. In the case of appointments to the public sector, in six of the last eight years the proportion of Catholics appointed has been statistically significant in comparison with the proportion who have applied. It is out of kilter. I am not saying that Protestants are being discriminated against. The evidence cannot point that up. All that the evidence can point to, on a basic statistical analysis, is that in six of the last eight years more Catholics have been appointed than the proportion of applicants would suggest should have been appointed. That is a question to be addressed. That is the minimum that we can say about it: the question needs to be addressed.

Before I come to the conclusion, a little anecdote. As I say at the bottom of page 29, it was pointed out in the DTZ report that members of the Church of Ireland have a greater unemployment differential than Presbyterians. Also, look at the statistics for Monaghan, where there is an unemployment differential against Catholics of 3·1. In Cavan it is 2·7. Are we saying that Catholics are discriminated against in the South compared to Protestants? Dare I ask, as a member of the Church of Ireland: are Church of Ireland members being discriminated against as compared with Presbyterians? That is what the data might say. Never mind Free Presbyterians; we will leave them for the moment.

Mr Poots: Presbyterians have a stronger work ethos than members of the Church of Ireland.

Mr Paisley Jnr: To compare page 31 and page 14, are you actually saying that —

Mr Nesbitt: Can I finish this, and then come to questions?

Mr Paisley Jnr: I want you to address this in your conclusion.

Are you saying that Government policies are better addressed if they target need and tackle disadvantage, rather than relying on general equality legislation to tackle disadvantage and need?

Mr Nesbitt: I am saying that TSN and New TSN target need objectively — that is what they are meant to do. Need is where there is disadvantage and unemployment, and therefore the policy might be to recruit from among the unemployed. I am saying that that policy did not affect the unemployment differential as people thought it would. People are still seeing the unemployment differential. While someone said earlier that it was down to 1·8 from 2·4, it had actually been down to 1·6 earlier. It oscillates. It is there: it is a structural dimension that needs to be addressed. We should not confuse disadvantage with discrimination.

Let me move to my conclusion. The process of accurate, clear and simple representation by Government is essential. There are issues around this table, and members will disagree with what I have said. You hold your views with clarity and I do not disrespect your views, but Government needs to make an assessment of this. We cannot do it.

As the Government have the resources, the wherewithal and the data, the Committee should tell them to explain this matter in clear and simple terms so that the Ulsterman or Ulsterwoman in the street can understand it. For example, is the unemployment differential caused by discrimination or not? Does the unemployment differential show equality of opportunity or not? I have listed the questions. Government should also initiate, as a matter of urgency, the appointments procedure.

The Ulster Unionist Party strongly supports fairness for all. It is realised that equality is a sensitive issue and disadvantage must be addressed by Government and by others who have such responsibility. I do not deny that.

The challenge to Government is to fully address the issues of equality that are of concern to the people in Northern Ireland. Until then, it will be difficult to turn away from past perceptions and look to a different future — a future beneficial to both Catholics and Protestants.

I ask members to note that. I do not ask them to return to this issue next week unless they wish to do so, but I have no problems with answering any questions that may arise. However, I would prefer to have bilateral discussions with parties on this. Given that there have been disagreements, the Committee should ask the Government to tell us where we stand on equality issues — they have the responsibility, the authority and the knowledge to do so.

Mr O’Dowd: Sinn Féin will take up Mr Nesbitt’s offer to have a bilateral discussion on the Ulster Unionist Party’s document. Certain parts of the document brought to mind the Flat Earth Society’s very good website, which can convince a person that the earth is flat, if they wish to be so convinced. However, other evidence shows that the earth is not flat, and I am inclined to believe that. Mr Nesbitt can produce as many statistics and documents as he wishes, but if they ignore the reality of our lives, it is a pointless exercise.

Mr Nesbitt: I would like it noted that I mentioned community differentials, which include healthcare and so forth, as distinct from the unemployment differential. I have never denied that there is disadvantage in this com­munity. However, I do question whether that disadvantage arises from discrimination. There is a distinct difference between disadvantage that must be addressed by Government and unlawful discrimination, which section 75 prohibits. If Mr O’Dowd disagrees with me — flat-earthers versus round-earthers, in a sense — perhaps this is something for the Government.

Mr O’Dowd: I will come to that point.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Three members have yet to speak, and five proposals are to be put to the Committee. We need to move quickly if we are to get this matter half sewn-up by lunchtime.

Mr O’Dowd: My comments will be very brief. We gave Mr Nesbitt a long time to go through his document. Discrimination causes disadvantage, and it has done so over the years.

Mr Nesbitt suggested that this Committee should ask the Government; the parties around this table should be the Government. We should not be running, cap in hand, to ask a party that has no votes here, and that does not understand the thinking of this place, to solve our problems. We are all more than capable of solving our own problems, including discrimination and equality issues. We can do it on our own; we do not have to ask Peter Hain or whoever else is sent to this place next time around.

Unionism has built a state on the belief that equality and civil rights are not needed, and that there is no discrimination. The communities that the unionist parties represent now believe that they are being discriminated against, but the mindset that they have been given is such that they believe that there is no mechanism to remedy that discrimination. On the other hand, all the other parties spent decades campaigning for such mechanisms to be put in place, and Sinn Féin still believes that those mechanisms should be strengthened.

If there is discrimination in the Housing Executive — and I would like to see the figures to which the DUP refers — it is wrong. The DUP must ensure that mechanisms are put in place to protect the rights of the individual and of the community being discriminated against. If applicants for jobs in the Housing Executive have been discriminated against because they are Protestants, they should have access to the Equality Commission. That body should be properly funded so that cases can be progressed. If discrimination is proven, the Equality Commission should have the power to ensure that it does not happen again. That is Sinn Féin’s argument.

Mrs Long: I want to address some of Mr O’Dowd’s comments. I accept the truth of what he says, but it is a half-truth: discrimination can cause disadvantage, but not all disadvantage comes from discrimination. There is a difference there. If Mr O’Dowd believes that disadvantage in the Catholic community results solely from unionist discrimination, how does he explain disadvantage in the unionist community?

Mr O’Dowd: I did not say that.

Mrs Long: You said that discrimination caused disadvantage, but that is only part of the picture. There is a bigger picture.

Last week, we discussed at length the issue of public appointments, specifically in relation to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. We discussed how people viewed those appointments, whether they were broadly representative of the community, and what exactly that meant. We discussed the fact that unionists panned the previous Human Rights Commission as being too nationalist because its Protestant members were not perceived as being unionist enough. Nationalists also panned the commission because they felt that there were too many Protestant members, even though unionists did not accept that those members were unionists. There is a whole complexity there that we need to look at. We have talked about public appointments being broadly reflective of our communities, but we have not reached a consensus as to what that means.

I want to reiterate the Alliance Party’s position: appointments and offers of employment should be based on merit. Merit should be the primary driver. That leads on to Ms Lewsley’s proposal. If we are going to appoint on merit, then unless the issues of disadvantage and need are addressed, there will be imbalance in the workforce because one section of the community will be better educated, better qualified and better prepared. If the issues of disadvantage and need are addressed, based on objective criteria, people can approach the employment market — whether public appointments or direct employment — on a level playing field. It is at that point that appointments are made on merit.

I also want to talk about differentials. The Ulster Unionist Party made a long presentation that was quite important because we all tend to lift figures that represent a window in time. For example, one could look at the figures from one round of recruitment in a particular organisation to see how many Protestants and Catholics have been offered jobs. If there are too many of one or the other, one might think that there must have been discrimination, but that is not true. There can be a differential at any point in time if people are appointed on merit without any discrimination. You may find that the majority of appointees will be Protestant in one case or Catholic in another. The question is whether there is a trend over a period to suggest that the organisation is skewing the figures deliberately in one direction or another. A differential does not prove discrimination. In order to prove discrimination, it has to be shown that an organisation is actively skewing the figures. We must be very careful. I am not arguing the case for differentials. I am simply saying that trends, not windows, must be examined. Otherwise, you get an unfair picture of what is happening.

The Alliance Party is in favour of affirmative action. It is fine, based on need, to go out and take affirmative action in advance of the recruitment and selection process, but it has to be distinct from that process, not least because it is being done in the context of Catholic and Protestant, unionist and nationalist. Many other members of society need to enter the employment process knowing that their applications will be treated fairly, whether those people are disabled, are of a different gender or have a different sexual orientation. They need to know that their rights are protected, and the only way to do that is to encourage all to apply, to establish what needs to be done to raise people up to a certain standard and then to appoint on the basis of merit. That is how a healthy society ought to function.

Ian Paisley Jnr mentioned fifty-fifty recruitment and the notion of positive discrimination. There is no such thing as positive discrimination — discrimination against one person in favour of somebody else is not a positive thing. It may appear positive to the individual who benefits — although I would question that — but it is certainly not positive to those who are being discriminated against. I am not even sure whether it is a good thing for the people whom the discrimination favours.

I have argued against positive discrimination and quotas that favour women, because people should be appointed on merit, and I am confident that there are women of merit who can be appointed to posts without having to rely on quotas or positive discrimination. That same argument can be applied for any other section of society. The issue of need must be dealt with. Therefore the Alliance Party supports Patricia Lewsley’s proposal because it would lead to there being fully merit-based appointments.

12.15 pm

Mr Hussey: I am glad that Francie Brolly mentioned the potential for turnaround. People in my neck of the woods — and I am thinking of an east-west divide rather than a religious divide — must be made aware of that. The Committee has concentrated on labour-market issues and employment issues, and rightly so. It is something about which people feel strongly. However, I hope that, as the debate on equality issues opens up, we shall be discussing more than the labour market. For example, where I live, I have exactly the same access to public transport as my Catholic neighbour does. Therefore there are more issues around equality than simply those in the employment market.

Naomi mentioned consideration of the individual. I hope that we are working towards establishing principles that can create a climate of equality, as opposed to our having to enforce legislation. Equality must be objective, and in order to achieve that, we must look at opportunity, access, needs and merit. We can find a way forward for our society if we adhere to those principles.

Mr Poots: I note what Sinn Féin said about proper funding for the Fair Employment Commission and the Equality Commission. The Fair Employment Commission ceased to exist a number of years ago, so why one would put public money into a body that does not exist is beyond me.

The composition of the RUC was mentioned earlier, yet the Equality Commission could be described as being two thirds Catholic and 100% non-unionist. Although the Equality Commission has acted on behalf of individuals, it has never acted for the entire unionist community in any case in which that community has identified a problem with equality.

As an example of a high-profile case, pressure was put on Shorts to ensure that more Catholics were employed there. However, we have not seen the same pressure being applied to such groups as the Quinn Group. There is a huge chill factor against the unionist community at Queen’s University, particularly in its school of law. It is worrying that that is from where our future barristers, solicitors and judges will come. The huge inequality that exists there will feed through to those who operate our judiciary. However, in spite of the fact that those issues have been brought to its attention time and again, the Equality Commission has refused to take any of them on board.

Reference was made to the Housing Executive, for example. Last year, 32% of job applications to the Housing Executive came from the Protestant community; that figure should have been 52%.

Why does such a chill factor exist in the Housing Executive? Why does the Equality Commission do nothing about it? The Equality Commission does nothing because it is not interested in tackling unionist concerns. Whenever unionist politicians raise such issues, they are not dealt with. The unionist community has no confidence whatsoever that the current Equality Commission will carry out its duties impartially.

Another aspect of that lack of confidence is that the Equality Commission appears to deem the national flag as potentially creating a chill factor for the nationalist community. That criterion does not appear to be applied to the Irish language. At least two councils in Northern Ireland erect exclusively Irish language signs in some areas — not dual language signs; exclusively Irish signs. The Equality Commission has made no attempt to move against those councils for doing that.

All the evidence is that the Equality Commission is non-unionist, anti-unionist and will do nothing to address concerns raised by unionists. The unionist community has no confidence whatsoever in the Equality Commission. Unless those issues are addressed — and addressed at commissioner level — that will continue.

Ms Lewsley: The SDLP does not claim that the differential proves ongoing discrimination. However, we are focused on reducing the differentials; the elimination of such differentials is already stated in the Good Friday Agreement.

Differentials can be tackled by wider action on disadvantage, unemployment black spots, and even under-representation in the workforce, whatever that may be. There are also issues of addressing trends and, of course, investment west of the Bann or elsewhere. All the issues that have been raised are encompassed in my proposal about targeting need objectively.

Mr Campbell: I will speak about Patricia’s proposal at the end. I shall try to make a composite proposal, although it might be difficult. There are elements that are complementary rather than contradictory.

Dermot kindly quoted me in his document. As I said in my intervention, that quote is from the Equality Commission. It took considerable time, a number of parliamentary questions, and several letters and phone calls to the Equality Commission to establish that figure. If the Equality Commission were performing its function adequately, it should have undertaken that research and published that figure in the public domain to demonstrate the type of problem that the com­mission currently faces, rather than creating the appearance that the Equality Commission operates on the basis on which its predecessor was established. That is, to try to understand or rationalise why Catholics are more likely to be unemployed than Protestants.

It is a ludicrous, but logical, conclusion that figures show that Protestants are, to some degree, under-represented in relation to the number of jobs that have been available on the job market in recent years. If Catholics got 100% of the jobs, they would still be more likely to be unemployed than Protestants. What is the next logical step for anyone who believes that the unemployment ratio must be fixed — as Dominic said, bringing the ratio down from 2·5 to 1?

Anyone who accepts the premise that the unemployment differential must be eliminated, and that that is the holy grail, is up against the logic that even if, the Catholics get all the jobs available, they are still more likely to be unemployed. What do you do then? There is nowhere to go.

Difficult as it may be, the unemployment differential must be set aside. Both Dermot and I have referred to the fact that Catholics are more likely to be unemployed in parts of the Republic.

Mr Nesbitt: I do not want to get into an argument with Gregory, but the point is that unemployment differential says nothing about the likelihood of being unemployed. Unemployment data does not show that Catholics are more likely to be unemployed.

Mr Campbell: I was speaking statistically. I am in danger of getting a sore head, and I want to avoid that.

There is a perception — and I heard it from Sinn Féin today — that unionist representatives take a particular view now because of the evolution of problems facing the unionist community. The Fair Employment Agency was established in 1976 and released its first report in late 1977. I was on its doorstep within 24 hours of that report being issued, nearly 29 years ago. My party has not been raising those issues because of a latter evolution since the late 1990s or early 2000s; we have been tackling them for over a quarter of a century. Unfortunately, the passage of time is proving that what we have been saying is true.

I do not want to reiterate that; it is a matter of record. I want to move to what will hopefully be an amalgam of proposals. Equality measures must be targeted objectively and have to be implemented to address current trends in order that future problems can be averted.

Ms Lewsley: Can that last bit be repeated? Equality measures must be targeted objectively and have to be —

Mr Murphy: Implemented.

Mr Campbell: They must be implemented to address current trends in order that future problems can be averted.

Mr Nesbitt: I want to add something to try to get a real composite motion, if that is possible. I take John O’Dowd’s point that it is for Members to be in Government and to take action.

Ms Lewsley: You said John Dallat; do you not mean John O’Dowd?

Mr Nesbitt: I did not; I said John O’Dowd.

Mr O’Dowd: That is all right; I have been called many things.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): It is getting close to lunchtime.

Mr Nesbitt: I may have inadvertently called you Carmel, Patricia. A few weeks ago, I forgot Arlene’s name and did not call her anything and she chided me.

Ms Lewsley: I am sorry.

Mr Kennedy: It was in the papers, I think.

Mr Nesbitt: Was it? [Laughter.]

Although John O’Dowd said that it is for Members, not the Government, to take action, I still think that it will be at least three months before there is an Assembly here. The Government can help by notifying us of their position on this matter. Words to that effect should be added if we are seeking a composite motion. There is nothing to preclude that happening in the next three months.

Although we want equality to be objectively targeted, adverse trends to be addressed and objectively implemented, we also want to know what we are dealing with. Government should be able to bring that forward. I have not found the form of words yet, Chairman, but that should be reflected in the proposal.

Mr O’Dowd: I have a question. The Housing Executive has been batted back and forth across the table today. Gregory made the point that the DUP has been using mechanisms — with which we may not agree — to resolve discrimination. Has the DUP, or anyone else, lodged a complaint with the Equality Commission about the Housing Executive’s employment practices?

Mr Poots: We have lodged a complaint about the Equality Commission itself, which has not been taken up.

Mr Campbell: To be fair, I have been working with the Housing Executive on affirmative action measures, and I have met Paddy McIntyre on a number of occasions. The Housing Executive has adopted a number of measures, but they have not worked, which the Housing Executive freely admits. We have lodged numerous complaints.

I do not want to single out the Housing Executive; it has been mentioned several times — indeed, I have done so. The Housing Executive is an example of the problem rather than the exclusive preserve of the problem.

The public sector comprises much more than the Housing Executive. It includes the Child Support Agency (CSA) and the general service grades of the Civil Service. It employs 30,000 people, not just the 3,000 who work for the Housing Executive.

12.30 pm

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Can we try to tie down the wording of the proposal?

Ms Lewsley: May I table an amendment to the proposal?

Mr Nesbitt: It is 12.30 pm; we normally break for lunch at this time. The officials have heard our discussion, so it would be good if, after lunch, they could present members with a nicely phrased composite of all the views that have been heard rather than have members rush to draft something now.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Good idea. How about 15 minutes for lunch?

Mr Nesbitt: Note that I said that the officials should summarise our discussions to help us. I always believe that officials are here to help us.

Mr O’Dowd: The officials are not getting any lunch.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We will reconvene at 12.50 pm.

The Committee was suspended at 12.31 pm.

On resuming —

12.54 pm

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I will put the first proposal.

The Committee Clerk: The proposal is that equality measures need to be implemented to address objective need and current trends to avert future problems; and all interested parties, including Government, should be fully committed to addressing this issue.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Is there consensus on that?

Mr O’Dowd: To clarify, that motion covers a number of areas that we have discussed, but it does not cover Sinn Féin proposals. Is that agreed?

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Yes.

The proposal is mainly a mixture of Patricia’s and Gregory’s proposals.

Is there consensus?

Members indicated assent.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We move now to Pat O’Rawe’s proposals.

The Committee Clerk: The first proposal is that the Northern Ireland Act 1998 be amended to give the Equality Commission enforcement powers.

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

Members indicated dissent.

The Committee Clerk: The second proposal is that all public bodies should be designated to comply with section 75.

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

Members indicated dissent.

The Committee Clerk: The third proposal is that the British Government need to establish an independent recruitment and selection panel for the Equality Commission to ensure that the commission is representative and balanced in its composition.

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

Members indicated dissent.

Ms Lewsley: I accept that we are discussing equality, but the issue involves more than the Equality Commission. The composition of the Human Rights Commission, and appointments to it, were mentioned at our previous meeting, as were other bodies.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The proposal deals with the section on equality that we have been discussing.

Mr O’Dowd: I wish to clarify a point, without re-opening the debate: Sinn Féin made those proposals, as it wants to ensure that a strong mechanism exists to enforce equality. That is why the party concentrated on those issues.

Mrs Long: The Alliance Party does not see the need for a separate procedure for either the Equality Commission or the Human Rights Commission. We believe that there should be a standard procedure for public appointments.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We do not have consensus on those proposals.

The next issue is “Good relations”. The Alliance Party will begin the debate.

Mr McCarthy: The Alliance Party believes that addressing our deep communal divisions is critical to placing the restored institutions on a durable and sustainable basis. Until very recently, community-relations problems have not been addressed in any serious manner. Community relations was a marginal issue in the Good Friday Agreement. Furthermore, it was, at best, a marginal issue in all the various plans, declarations and agreements that have been devised in attempts to implement the Good Friday Agreement.

Despite — or perhaps because of — the agreement, Northern Ireland remains a deeply divided society. Unfortunately, in many respects, divisions have become even more entrenched. Strong sectarian and racist attitudes remain prevalent, and there is a deeply ingrained pattern of segregation. Often, territory and public space are marked out through the use of exclusive communal symbols. Although separation is generally not the formal policy of the state, there is substantial duplication in the provision of goods, facilities and services by both the public and private sectors.

In the field of education, 95% of Northern Ireland’s schoolchildren attend what is, in effect, a segregated school system. More peace walls, which are built to keep people apart, have been erected since the 1994 ceasefires than were ever erected before.

However, there are also many positive trends. Significant elements of civil society are organised on a cross-community basis. The workplace is integrated, largely through top-down regulation. There is evidence of substantial public support for shared education, housing and leisure pursuits, but that aspiration for shared provision is often frustrated, sometimes because of the lack of facilities, but mainly because of fears over security — both physical and cultural.

More and more people are casting off traditional identity labels and challenging the notion that Protestant equals British equals unionist or that Catholic equals Irish equals nationalist. A growing number of new immigrants is coming to Northern Ireland to live and work, and that is an encouraging sign of globalisation in the economy. Their welcome presence poses a challenge to the traditional conceptions of identity. Furthermore, it is increasingly recognised that the economic, financial and personal cost of managing a divided society is unsustainable.

The them-versus-us competition for control over resources and territory is a continued source of communal tensions that sometimes flares into violence or, indeed, mass public disorder.

1.00 pm

The Alliance Party warmly embraces the concept of a shared future. The term can refer to the commitment of a divided community to overcome barriers and work together for a better future. However, it more properly refers to a set of policy principles and specific policy commitments. My party welcomes the framework document, ‘A Shared Future’, published in March 2005, and also the first of the triennial action plans that was published in April 2006. “Shared future” is not simply another label for repackaging community-relations policies of old. It is not primarily about looking at the funding of projects. Rather, it must be seen as a challenge to the range of policies and practices in Northern Ireland.

The Alliance Party regrets that most of those developments have occurred under the watch of direct rule Ministers rather than devolved or local Ministers. It is notable that the Government have finally accepted that the division of Northern Ireland into two communities that, they assume, are impossible to reconcile, and, at best, trying to manage those divisions, is not a sustainable or acceptable strategy. Instead, the Government now accept that the only credible way forward lies in a shared and integrated society, in which people can live, learn, work and play together in safety. The ‘A Shared Future’ action plan puts forward a commitment to mainstream such thinking throughout public policy and in the delivery of goods, facilities and services.

In conclusion, the Alliance Party believes that the details of building a shared future can be left to the normal public-policy mechanisms. However, a commitment to a shared future is essential to advance the political process. I propose that all parties endorse the framework document, ‘A Shared Future’, and the action plan; and that they regard their implementation as critical to political progress.

Mr Paisley Jnr: When people talk about good relations, they say that it is a good idea and that they want some of it. They then try to build on that. It is difficult to nail down exactly what “Good relations” involves. How can good relations be implemented? Policies or strategies for building good community relations should not be based on an attack on the education structure, but that is a debate for another day. The pursuit of good community relations should not bring about a leap towards integrated education. Intolerant people can be found in various schools, including schools in the integrated sector. It must be recognised that integrated education is not a panacea.

We must try to put together the building blocks for good relations. Those building blocks have already been discussed with regard to equality. If people believe that they have equality in law, they will believe that they have a shared future. If people perceive that equality exists, good relations will develop and grow. If people believe in the services of the state — the legitimacy of law and order, in particular — suspicions will decrease and the opportunity to build a shared future will increase.

There are examples of the private sector, as well as the public sector, trying to generate the notion that Ulster is everybody’s. Linfield Football Club has recently upgraded and increased its activities to combat sectarianism with its commitment to the Irish Football Association’s (IFA) ‘Kick it Out’ campaign. That follows the Football Association (FA) in England’s campaign, ‘Let’s Kick Racism Out of Football’. That demonstrates a positive activity of people trying to show, on a practical, day-to-day basis, how we should try to share this piece of the world and live together in peace and harmony.

Most people want to live together in peace and harmony. However, those who have wrecked the peace and harmony for the past 30 years — the paramilitary gangs, thugs, and gangsters on all sides — have brought us to this point at which we are discussing ways of overcoming that. Most people want to live together and share this piece of turf, but, unfortunately, the legacy of the past causes suspicions, and those suspicions must be addressed. People will find that they are addressed in different ways to their satisfaction.

It is difficult to pin down specific ways in which to legislate for good relations; a lot of it needs to be done by example. What seem like good relations to one person may not be comfortable for someone else. We should not challenge what people ultimately believe. Some people have the notion that achieving good relations means that they set aside what they believe in, and that strong views — religious, cultural or political — must have the rough edges taken off. However, that sours the notion of true relations, because a person should be able to respect another’s beliefs, whatever those beliefs are.

We have seen that people in Northern Ireland cannot respect those who are different. Every year, the orange community is reminded that it is not respected. Most people would be happy if nationalists said that they are not offended by it, because they are not interested in it. I am not offended when I go to England and see morris dancing, because I am not interested in it. If we could get to that point, we might start to see a practical and pragmatic good-relations strategy develop.

Mrs O’Rawe: I will cover “Shared future” as well as “Good relations. Paragraph 13 on page 18, paragraph 13 of the Good Friday Agreement pledges:

“The participants recognise and value the work being done … to develop reconciliation … understanding and respect between and within communities and traditions, in Northern Ireland and between North and South, and they see such work as having a vital role in consolidating peace and political agreement.”

The British Government subsequently produced ‘A Shared Future: A Consultation Paper on Improving Relations in Northern Ireland’. That document, like its predecessor, shied away from any analysis of the causes of division, inequality and structured discrimination and sectarianism that the British Government fostered and nurtured.

‘A Shared Future’ is fundamentally flawed in many ways, not least because it places the burden of blame for community conflict on people’s lack of trust. It also shows the classic and insulting “two tribes” approach shown by British Ministers and policy-makers that provides a smokescreen for the divisive role they played in failing to honestly tackle the causes of community conflict.

The document acknowledges that disadvantage and community conflict are related, but the major flaw is that there is no recommendation to amend the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to allow the Equality Commission to assume the statutory responsibility for good relations that would provide the oversight for monitoring the mainstreaming of good relations across public bodies. Instead, a significantly enhanced role is to be undertaken by the existing Community Relations Council (CRC), with ministerial oversight.

‘A Shared Future’ fails to acknowledge the divisive role that the state played in contributing to deeply rooted mistrust and suspicion between communities, which extended into the core patterns and structures of relationships at all levels in the North. It fails to provide any clear definition of sectarianism or, in its section on fundamental principles, a commitment to measures to eradicate it.

The Equality Commission — not the CRC — should be the clearly identified public authority responsible for promoting good relations. The Equality Commission is already responsible for promoting good race relations. In order that there be no dilution of existing equality laws, and that there be clarity on whether the CRC or the commission should be given the additional respons­ibilities to promote good relations between people of different religious beliefs and political opinions, the commission must have the leadership role.

In England, the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR) is responsible for promoting good relations on six grounds: faith; age; disability; gender; race; and sexual orientation. The Equality Commission’s position on the single equality Bill, which is stalled at present, is that it is seeking to have similar powers extended here.

A commission on national reconciliation should be established under the aegis of the North/South Ministerial Council. The commission would report to the Executive and Dáil Éireann and would instigate participative consultation, research and inclusive discussion. It would also ensure that any good-relations strategy would be built primarily on mainstreaming of the equality agenda.

Ms Lewsley: I would also like to cover “Shared future” and “Good relations”, because they overlap. We are supposed to be talking about good relations, yet we have had a proposal on a shared future.

To create a shared future is the purpose of any peace process. It is about equal citizenship and human rights for all. All public goods, services and facilities should be open and accessible to everyone. A shared future should be about living, working and playing together. Policy-making in any new Executive must take account of a shared future, and give it its full support.

As things stand, those who are intimidated, rather than the perpetrators, are moved on. It matters that people are frightened when going through our cities and town centres at night and that people are intimidated by flags, murals and, more recently, football regalia. Such attacks cannot be justified, and the failure to reach political agreement cannot be justified either.

A shared future cannot be seen as a small side-policy — it must be a major structure of government. It means opposing all forms of sectarianism and taking a firm stand on all that is said and done in a sectarian nature, rather than explaining, minimising or making excuses for it. It means taking down all flags down public property.

The Committee has heard talk about the building blocks of a shared future. I believe that there are many of them, and that good relations is one building block. Good relations must be the mainstay of central Government and their Departments, as must be our councils, or the new councils that the Review of Public Administration (RPA) will create. Good relations should be implemented as a key part of section 75 alongside the new power-sharing arrangements that will promote working partnerships when we see the RPA put in place.

Good-relations committees have been set up in most councils — a few have still to be established. Some are working, many are not, and some are paying lip service. We need to reach a standard across the board. In particular, it is important that political parties on all councils sign up to the concept of good relations and try to ensure the delivery of good relations in their councils and communities.

As Ian Paisley Jnr said, good relations are often seen as good for one person but bad for another. In trying to reach a compromise, we need an understanding of respect and diversity. Good relations are a building block to help that.

We have talked for a long time about a shared future, and it is time we made that talk a reality. I support the Alliance Party’s proposal.

1.15 pm

Mr Kennedy: The Ulster Unionist Party believes that the overall aim of any community relations policy must be to work for a pluralist society in which views and opinions, consistent with democratic values, co-exist and are respected. Only in such a context can a truly modern and cosmopolitan society develop.

While — realistically — the main relations at issue are between the Protestant and Roman Catholic com­munities, a community relations policy must be able to embrace and promote other communities, such as other faiths, ethnic groups, and those who are less able.

The objective of having a shared society is important. However, it is essential that policy makers accept that due to the legacy of the conflict, the violence and the continued political uncertainty, many in our society, at this point, are unable to endorse such an aspiration. Those views must be respected; but equally, they must not constrain others who are able and willing to develop a more shared society.

In essence, the policy objective must be to develop a society in which the main drivers are tolerance and mutual respect. Progress would be much quicker and easier if violence and paramilitarism would end; however, it is probably unrealistic to set that as a precondition. The development of a pluralist society is regarded as part of the process of hastening the end of those negative influences, but it will not be nearly enough on its own. Nonetheless, communities need to have confidence that the forces of law and order are serious about getting to grips with paramilitarism.

The overall aim of any community relations policy in a modern society must be to develop tolerance and respect. The acceptance and promotion of diversity as an asset must be developed, as opposed to the current pervasive attitude, which suppresses expressions of difference and sees diversity in the workplace, school or society as a cause of conflict.

A community relations policy must strive to develop respect so that different cultures and traditions can be celebrated in a way that adds to society, rather than being seen as a cause of offence. In many areas, cohesion has broken down and the community often feels isolated, embattled and belittled. A community relations policy must seek to develop structures in communities to raise confidence and community self-esteem. In many cases, there is a need to break the dominance of paramilitaries so that genuine leadership and community structures can emerge. Apathy and the general malaise towards building improved relationships must be removed. Throwing money at the problem has manifestly proven not to be the solution.

New policies to develop community cohesion must recognise that the two main communities approach community relations in very different ways. Consequently, the same model will not fit — nor must it be made to fit — both communities. The outcome of such policies must be confidence in communities and societies so that individuals will have the freedom to choose where to work and live, unrestricted by fear.

Furthermore, individuals and groups should be able to express and promote their views and beliefs in a climate of respect and tolerance. Under a community relations policy that promotes diversity and respect, it is essential that civic society and Government be pro-active in the promotion of cultural diversity. Tolerance and respect must replace the current policies of neutrality and avoidance.

Finally, new community structures need to be developed to replace the paramilitaries. Those structures must show that problems within and between com­munities can be addressed through routes other than violence. The relative calm of the summer sets a precedent, but it certainly should not be regarded as evidence that any underlying problems have been solved.

Increasing neutrality has led to increased intolerance, as evidenced by the extension of the classification of offensive items, such as political emblems, to include sporting emblems etc. Such a lack of tolerance breeds intolerance.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Does the Alliance Party or DUP want to add anything on shared future issues? All parties seem to have taken equality and shared issues together.

Mrs Long: We took the two together, although we did not preface that in our remarks.

Mr Campbell: I want the SDLP to elaborate on the view that Patricia expressed on the councils. I understand the ramifications of the RPA, because the SDLP, the DUP and others have spelt them out. Patricia’s comments suggested that, however the RPA develops, the SDLP wants particular good relations issues to be resolved in advance of the RPA. Good relations could, therefore, be established on the back of the allocation of positions, power-sharing or whatever else being statutorily enshrined.

Ms Lewsley: Yes, that is right.

Mr Campbell: That is what I understood from your comments. Do you equally accept that that is one side of the coin, which I presume also applies to many in the nationalist community? The unionist community wants similar assurances to be statutorily enshrined in relation to any prospect of nationalist-controlled councils proceeding on a North/South basis, establishing North/South bodies or establishing matters in relation to a power-sharing Administration between Northern Ireland and the Republic.

Do you accept that that should be similarly enshrined? In the same way that nationalists seek comfort and reassurance in the way that you have described, unionists seek reassurance on the other side of the coin on North/South issues.

Ms Lewsley: I understand that. Both sides have a number of issues that must be resolved in any future Government here. I have no problem with that.

Mr Campbell: Do you accept that the concerns of each side of the community are equally valid?

Ms Lewsley: Yes.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Gregory, do you have anything to add on shared future issues or did you take the equality and shared future issues together?

Mr Campbell: We took them together.

Mr Nesbitt: Pat O’Rawe said that the failure to tackle the causes of the conflict was part of the com­munity relations problem. Some of those causes have been stated to such an extent that they are not soluble.

I choose my words carefully: the paramilitary wing of the republican movement has strongly stated that one cause of the conflict is the British presence in Ireland. I accept that removing that cause has been taken forward in peaceful terms since July 2005, as distinct from removing it by other means. However, if a peaceable removal of the causes of the conflict remains an agent provocateur within the structures of government, that does not help community relations.

A recently published work by Peter Shirlow states that the 35% increase in communal violence was partly due to constitutional and political uncertainty.

I wish to see a stable, functioning Northern Ireland accepting the position as it is, and that we thus proceed. Therefore, when we talk about failing to tackle the causes of community conflict, I wonder whether some of those causes can be removed.

Mr Brolly: We have an even split between those who describe themselves as British and those who do not. That does not necessarily have to be a cause of conflict; in many countries in the world people of different ethnic origins live together peacefully and get on with the practical business of living.

People on the other side are not going to stop being British just because I ask them to stop, and I am not going to be British because someone asks me to be. I resent people insisting that I am British just because I live in Dungiven, County Derry, rather than somewhere in Munster.

Rather than tackle something that, at this point, is insoluble, I prefer to discuss some of the positive things that we can do, such as accepting each other as we are — you British, me Irish.

Let us return to the question of education as a platform for shared experience and shared territory. Integrated education, as is now described and espoused so enthusiastically by the Alliance Party, does not make a useful contribution at all. It adds a third tier of schooling that takes away the very people that should be using their influence in the main school population to take the rough edges off this idea of Protestant versus Catholic schoolchildren.

I am a firm believer in integrated education, but I mean total integration — not some people being drawn off certain communities, usually middle-class. All youngsters, Protestant and Catholic, from whatever community, should be educated together. There should not be state schools, as our friends across the table prefer to call them — we call them Protestant schools and Catholic schools. There is a good practical reason for my preference, just as there is a good reason for not having integrated education as a third tier, and that is that there need only be one school instead of two, and one set of staff instead of two.

Ideologically, the consequence is that children grow up together, get used to their difference, and do not mind if the lad sitting on one side calls himself British, or if the lad sitting on the other side calls himself Irish, plays Gaelic football or puts Irish language signs up on his desk. We should discuss seriously that area of education.

Education is about more than a curriculum or what is read in text books; it is about making an impression on young people at the right time. We should not wait until they are educated together at university. There are some very good secondary schools, such as Limavady Grammar School in my constituency, in which the population is very well mixed. However, we should start at the beginning, in prep schools and primary schools, with all the children together.

Mrs Long: I want to go back to a couple of things. The issue of integrated education has been raised, and we referred to it in our document. I am not sure where Mr Brolly is coming from, because what he says seems to be at odds with itself.

It has never been our view that integrated education should be a third option in a multiplicity of systems, and we have never promoted that. There are almost five systems running side by side, not three. However, the status quo that confronts parents is one in which schools are largely divided on religious grounds, some by choice and some by default.

In reality, if parents want their children to have an integrated education, their only options have been either to transform the schools that their children attend or to remove their children from their current schools and start them afresh at schools that have an integrated ethos. You mentioned, for example, that there may be mixing within existing schools — we accept that. The difficulty is that if mixing extends only to the religious denomination of the pupil base, and does not extent to the management structures and ethos and the curriculum and extra-curricular activities, it is not a fully integrated system.

1.30 pm

There is an argument. The economic arguments are clear as regards shared facilities, particularly given declining attendance rolls, and we accept that. However, there is the issue of parental choice also. The Alliance Party has not argued for a multiplicity of systems; the argument has come from parents who choose other forms of education and parents who choose integrated education. We must respect the parents who make those decisions for their children.

This is not solely a middle-class issue. If that is the perception that members have, I suggest that many integrated schools would be happy to invite them along to speak to their pupils who largely come from working-class backgrounds.

Mr Brolly: I would be the last person in the world to deny parents the right to have their children educated where they wish. I agree that the only way that parents can have integrated schools is through the third tier. I am suggesting that we get to a point where that tier is not needed and all children can be educated together.

Mrs Long: You would have the Alliance Party’s support on that.

Mr Brolly: As well as integrated schools, as they are called, I would get rid of Catholic schools and the so-called state Protestant schools: my remarks are not discriminatory towards the integrated sector.

Mr Hussey: Is Sinn Féin proposing controlled-integrated schools, as opposed to the current system, and that any parents who sought to go beyond that arrangement would have to finance the venture themselves?

Mr Brolly: My point is that if parents wanted their children to attend Catholic schools, they should be private schools. If parents wanted their children to attend Protestant schools, or Church of Ireland schools, that would be up to them. Those parents would face the same circumstances as those who want integrated schools do now. I do not know whether the state would be expected to help religious-based schools. I would probably oppose that.

Mr Poots: It is interesting that Sinn Féin is adopting a policy that was voted for by the first Government in Northern Ireland in 1921: a single state education sector, where all children were educated together. The local Catholic Church decided to opt out of the state school system. State schools have never been Protestant schools; they have always been schools that everyone was welcome to attend. The maintained sector contained schools with a Roman Catholic ethos, and that is a significant difference. There are no Protestant schools; there are schools, which are attended predominately by members of the Protestant community, because Roman Catholics were discouraged from attending them.

Mrs Long: Edwin, could you provide us with some information? If you are saying that there is no such thing as a Protestant or unionist school, could you explain the following situation? I accept your point that some of this situation happened by default, but it is established in law that members of the Protestant churches have the right to sit on the boards of governors of transferred schools. Also, children at state schools do not have the same access to culture. For example, the majority of state schools do not teach the Irish language or include Gaelic games in the sports curriculum. Therefore, state schools have an ethos problem, in that young Catholics or nationalists, when considering prospective schools, may feel that all their cultural issues would not be addressed by schools in the state sector.

I accept your point about the evolution process. However, do you accept that there may be barriers, either real or perceived, to children’s feeling comfortable attending predominately Protestant schools, albeit that that is not how they are classified?

Mr Poots: I take a number of those points. Nominees from Protestant churches are in the minority on boards of governors. Their presence has a lot to do with history and the fact that the churches helped to establish those schools.

Mrs Long: All of this is about history though.

Mr Poots: Those churches funded schools late in the nineteenth century and early in the twentieth century.

Roman Catholic attendance at many state schools has increased significantly in the past 10 years. Many parents have voted with their feet and sent their children to the schools that provide the best education in their area. Many Roman Catholics have decided that the state sector is the best sector for them, which means that integration has already taken place. I understand that Methodist College has a mix of pupils; about 30% of whom are Roman Catholic and 70% of whom are Protestant. That is a fairly high level of integration. Quite a number of so-called integrated schools have not achieved that level of integration.

Mrs Long: Who is the head of the school’s Gaelic football team at the minute?

Mr Poots: I have no idea who is the head of its rugby team, never mind its Gaelic team.

Mr D Bradley: I would like to clarify a point with Francie Brolly. Are the views on education that he expressed today his personal views or are they simply party policy?

Mr Brolly: My party is in favour of integrated education. I am simply taking it to its logical conclusion.

Mr D Bradley: I was under the impression that Sinn Féin was in favour of choice in education and that, like the SDLP, it believed that parents should have the right to choose the type of school that they send their children to, be it controlled, maintained, integrated or Irish-medium. Perhaps I have misunderstood Sinn Féin’s party policy.

Mr Brolly: It depends on whether we are considering education in the short-, medium- or long-term. The ultimate objective would be for all children to be educated together and taught a curriculum that fulfils every need, whatever the religious divide. It may well be the case in future that immigrants here who are not Protestant, Catholic or Irish-speaking will be helped to establish their own schools so that they can maintain their own ethnic culture and language. All that is possible. However, the ultimate dream for education, and, beyond that, the ultimate dream for this part of Ireland, is that everybody will live together and that we will stop remembering whether people are Protestant, Catholic or Irish-speaking, or whether they play on a Gaelic football team or a rugby team. I imagine us heading in that direction.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We must remember that this is not about education; it is about a shared future.

Mr Brolly: That is a good example of a platform.

Mr Nesbitt: Education is highly important as schools provide an informative environment for children and can impact on their views as they grow up. Like others sitting around this table, I found Sinn Féin’s contribution interesting, given the historical context and where the party is today. For example, Mr Brolly talked about the possibility of Catholic schools becoming private and funding themselves, if they so wished. I am not sure how the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools would view that, but it is an interesting point.

Mr Kennedy: Without even asking the council, I can confirm that it would certainly be horrified.

Mrs Long: That is an understatement.

Mr Brolly: Is it not a factor that the CCMS, as it currently stands, will no longer exist?

Mr Nesbitt: I did not collude with my colleague who made that witty comment. Mine was a very serious comment.

I wish to return to Mr Brolly’s comments on so-called state schools and Catholic schools. Catholic schools were part of the controlled state system, which was set up for all. However, as Edwin said, the Catholic Church opted out of that system. Similarly, at the time of the formation of the state, a quota of 30% was set for Catholic provision in the RUC, but that did not happen. We are where we are.

Naomi spoke about barriers, and she asked, jokingly, who the captain of the Gaelic team is in Methodist College. However, such barriers exist not only between the Irish and the British. George Best passed the 11-plus and went to the rugby-playing Grosvenor Grammar School. However, he wanted to play soccer so he transferred to Lisnasharragh High School; he was looking for a school that played soccer, not a school that played rugby. Therefore, to an extent, schools meet the clientele’s expectations.

Francie Brolly said that in many places throughout the world, people simply get on with their lives. I wish that we could do that in Northern Ireland. At a previous meeting of the Committee, I referred to international legal principles for governing democratic societies, where a person’s identity is established by his or her culture, language, education and religion. Unfortunately, in Northern Ireland, a political overtone is attached to that. I wish that people could feel very Irish, and speak Irish, but at the same time be British citizens. It should not be mutually exclusive to have an affinity with Irishness and Britishness. More Welsh is spoken in Wales than Irish is spoken in Ireland, yet people can feel strongly about their Welsh identity but also be British. Those positions are not mutually exclusive.

Citizenship and cultural aspiration and identity are different, but they are not mutually exclusive. In a normal society, they should complement one another — as Francie rightly said — as they do elsewhere in the world. Russians live in Estonia, where they remain Russian but play a part in Estonian life; the same applies to Hungarians living in Transylvania. In many countries, culture is seen as being different from citizenship. Unfortunately, in Northern Ireland, culture and citizenship overlap, which has led to disharmonious community relations and a divided society. That has had a knock-on effect in schools and the wider environment.

Ms Lewsley: Gregory asked me a question about power sharing and North/South issues. The SDLP wants power sharing to be a requirement and wants opportunities for North/South development based on mutual agreement and mutual benefits. The SDLP does not support prohibitions or restrictions being placed on councils that work on that basis. However, the party will address any concerns. Although power sharing, and checks and balances in the RPA, are important issues for the SDLP, it is not a problem for the party that the DUP has major concerns about North/South issues.

Mr Campbell: I accept Patricia’s clarification, although I am slightly confused because she spoke about the SDLP wanting power sharing to be a requirement — in other words, power sharing is essential. Equally, unionists state that their support of any North/South developments is a requirement and essential. One community’s requirements do not supersede the requirements of the other community.

Ms Lewsley: I said that if North/South developments were a big issue for the DUP, that posed no problem for the SDLP.

Mr Campbell: It is good that we have some measure of consensus.

I want to respond to a comment that Naomi made about education. The DUP view is that we should work toward a single education sector. Since 1948, there has been an uneven playing field in relation to education. We must move on from that position.

At the moment, my community, my family and my children have a straight option: I can send my children to a public sector, controlled state school — that does not mean a Protestant school; or I can pay for a private education, which creates many difficulties. There really is no option available. The Catholic community has a choice: it can send its children to a fully funded Catholic school or to a fully funded state school. I do not have that choice. That has been the situation for almost 60 years.

That must be ironed out in a way that is acceptable to every community.

1.45 pm

The first option is a level playing field with a single education sector for everyone. The second option is that the Protestant community is given what the Catholic community has now — an education sector funded by the taxpayer, with all the benefits that, as Naomi pointed out, currently apply to the Catholic sector. The latter option may not be everyone’s cup of tea, and it would not represent progress towards trying to build good relations.

Protestant children are not educated in Ulster-Scots history. They should be educated in that subject to the same extent that Catholic pupils are educated in Irish history. For the most part, Catholic children leave school fully conversant with their Irish history and background, but Protestant children are not similarly conversant with their Ulster-Scots history and background. If Protestants want to be educated in those subjects, they must go to the Ulster-Scots Agency or other funded bodies.

That, and so many other imbalances that flow from issues that do not come directly from the common curriculum, must be ironed out, one way or the other. Do we move towards a single education sector? If we do move in that direction, that is good, but the question is: how long will it take to get there? In the interim, how do we create a level playing field?

Mrs Long: I want to come back on a couple of points.

First, Francie Brolly referred to British and Irish ethnic identities. I do not accept the fact that they exist. The British and the Irish are not ethnically different. I have made that point previously when members complained that certain comments were racist. The differences between British and Irish people are of nationality, not ethnicity.

Mr Brolly: If I may intervene, I would never have used the term “British” in an ethnic sense.

Mrs Long: Hansard will reflect what he said.

Mr Brolly: “British” is a political term.

Mrs Long: It is, and “Irish” is also a political term and a nationality. The terms “British” and “Irish” may be used to refer to cultures, and so on, but largely when talking about national, not ethnic, identities.

Mr Brolly: People talk about Irish games and the Irish language.

Mrs Long: My second point concerns integrated education. Gregory referred to a single system of education. He spoke about the right, for example, of children from the unionist community to be educated in Ulster-Scots history in the same way in which children from the nationalist community are educated in Irish history. Perhaps it would be a real education for the entire community if all children were educated in both histories. That might open up opportunities for pupils to leave school with a more comprehensive view of history and the society in which they live than is currently the case.

I am not arguing against people being educated. My argument is against unionists having sole access to Ulster-Scots education. It would be useful for the entire community to be properly educated on all scores.

Mr Campbell: I fully accept what Naomi says and have no difficulty with it. The only problem is that it is likely to take a considerable time, whether it be one or two generations, to reach that goal. I want to know what we do in the interim.

Mrs Long: That was my next point, because Gregory talked about transformation. The Alliance Party has made clear its consistently held position — and it seems to be the position of other parties around the table — that the default arrangement should be that all children are educated together in a single system. In supporting the integrated-education movement, the Alliance Party has tried to focus on a transition to such a situation.

We are not interested in creating an extra tier of education. We want to know how to transform the current divided and divisive system into something that moves us forward towards a level playing field with which all parties, to varying degrees, are comfortable — the default position, which is that all children be educated together. Therefore, the debate is on the transformation process, not its outcome.

Mr Paisley Jnr: In that case, how do we get over the issue of choice?

Mrs Long: The issue of choice is not about the right to an integrated education. It comes down to Francie’s point about the right to have it funded by the state. As this process moves on, the debate will focus on that.

In any other society in which there has been com­munity division — and one need only look at the US to see the usefulness of integrating education — education can be a tool to unite or divide people. Where it is used to unite, it is an effective mechanism, although it is not the only one. This should not be about putting all our eggs in one basket, but it is a mechanism.

For that reason, for example, under the principle of a shared future, Alliance supports a raft of policies across Departments. From the point of parental choice, we want to move in that direction. It is a transformation process. Ultimately, however, the momentum must be created. Schools must be provided in line with demand, thereby creating a system in which integrated education is an option.

Currently, the only people who are denied the right to attend a school that reflects their ethos are those for whom no integrated school is available. Surplus places are never used. If Catholic parents wish to send their child to a Catholic school, or Protestant parents wish to send their child to a state school, they are never referred to a Protestant school or a Catholic school down the road if surplus places are available. That does not happen.

Mr Paisley Jnr: It does.

Mrs Long: It does not.

Mr Paisley Jnr: It has happened to my children.

Mrs Long: It only happens where parents choose integrated education. If we are talking about a process to move towards a default situation in which children are educated together, something must kick-start it. The integrated education movement has been part of that.

Mr Hussey: I was interested in Francie’s comment about an education system in this part of Ireland. My understanding was that Sinn Féin’s policy was an all-Ireland one.

Surely to goodness the major issue in education is the quality of provision, not where it is delivered. In strongly nationalist constituencies, such as mine, controlled grammar schools have a large number of nationalist kids who have chosen to go to those schools. We should examine the matter of choice.

Reference has been made to historical backgrounds. A major problem for unionism has been that many historical facts have been airbrushed out of history by nationalism/republicanism — the 16th Irish Division has more or less been ignored by the nationalist community. Moreover, the unionist community has withdrawn from its part in the 1798 rebellion. Each side of the community has ignored that cultural background.

I firmly believe that a different ethos exists in the Protestant community to that in the nationalist community. A parish structure exists in the nationalist community, whereas there is a more independent structure in the Protestant community. That, shall we say, community weakness has meant that unionists have been accused for a long time by nationalists/republicans of not having a culture. In fact, our culture is degraded at times.

Where unionists are a minority in strongly nationalist areas, the community lacks the capacity to advance. Therefore, in any shared future, the capacity to advance must be built within the weaker community. A community can only move forward to a shared future from a base of self-esteem.

Mr D Bradley: My impression from some of Gregory’s remarks was that he believed that maintained schools have taught their own brand of Irish history from within their walls.

A common history curriculum that is available to all schools is formulated by the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA), which welcomes consultation. At the moment, CCEA is reviewing the GCSE syllabuses, and anyone is welcome to express his or her ideas regarding the content of the curriculum. Generally speaking, the syllabus content for GCSEs is decided by a range of teachers, covering the various types of schools that there are in Northern Ireland, in conjunction with third-level experts from Queen’s University and the University of Ulster.

If it were felt that there is not enough emphasis on the Ulster-Scots contribution to Irish or Northern Irish history, CCEA would welcome views on that.

Mr Campbell: I do not know whether I have spelled it out explicitly, but it is our view that part of the problem flows from the fact that young people in the Protestant community lack identity, a concept of who and what they are, and knowledge of their tradition, history, values, culture and ethos. The Catholic community, however, through its education system, raises those ideologies and issues daily from four to 17 years of age, and beyond if pupils decide to go on to higher education.

Could CCEA encapsulate those values in a single education sector? That would be fine, and we would have no difficulty with that. However, we are not going to get to that point in the next five, 10 or probably 25 years. We may make progress in that direction, but we shall certainly not arrive at it.

It comes back to the issue that I raised with Naomi — what do we do in the interim? At present, nobody whom I have met from the nationalist community identifies flaws in the Catholic education system regarding the type and quality of education. When Catholic young people leave the system, they know about their history and culture, know clearly who they are and where they are going, and know the nature of their identity, ethos and background.

That cultural education is not shared to the same degree in the Protestant school-leaving population, and that is where, we believe, some of the problems are. Do we allow that to continue? That is the analogy that we make. The anomalies that exist between the two sectors must be ironed out.

Mr D Bradley: I do not believe for one minute that those who are in charge of Catholic education aim to create a neat, individual package out of each pupil. Their aim is to develop well-rounded individuals who are able to think for themselves, and who, from the Catholic point of view, are well grounded in their faith, since their schools are faith schools.

On the other hand, I do not accept that people coming from controlled schools are in some way confused about who they are and have no concept of their historical, cultural or sporting background. I do not believe that.

Mr Campbell: I did not say that they do not have a concept. If we took a survey of 1,000 school leavers from the maintained sector, it is our view that there would be a higher degree of consciousness of their Irish history, tradition, background and culture than there would be in a similar survey of 1,000 school leavers from the controlled system of their history, tradition, background and culture. The reason for that is the different emphasis in the two school traditions, both of which are paid for out of the public purse. That anomaly has to be ironed out.

Mr D Bradley: That is Gregory’s perception of the current situation. Gregory’s survey has not yet been carried out, so his views are based on his own perceptions, not on evidence. If such a survey could be designed, I would be interested to see its results. They might be surprising.

Mr Campbell: The evidence is in some of the election results. Those are the views that we put before the people, and they endorse them.

Mr D Bradley: Elections are not sociological, sensitive surveys.

2.00 pm

Mr Nesbitt: I wish to return to a couple of Naomi’s points. I empathise a lot with the distinction that she drew between the words “ethnic” and “national”, as the UK Government would with ethnic minorities and national minorities. The term “ethnic minorities” would, for example, relate to south-east-Asian émigrés who come to live in the United Kingdom. Although they would be diverse geographically, they might not necessarily feel that they have to be south-east Asian, as regards citizenship. The term “national minorities” would, in the UK sense, be more akin to the Scottish, Welsh and Irish.

Would Naomi take the logic to its conclusion and agree that there is a difference between nationality and citizenship? In Northern Ireland, the problem has not been that there are national minorities; rather, the problem has been one of secession. I stress that the word “minority” does not mean inferior: it means fewer in number, and it is most important that I repeat that on every occasion. Sections of the people of Northern Ireland wish to secede from the state in which they live. It has been quite a violent form of secession, which is not acceptable in international legal terms. Therefore, people can have British citizenship and consider their nationality to be Irish.

Naomi came across quite strongly about integrated education. The leader of the Alliance Party calls it the preferred choice rather than the third choice. Naomi was quite assertive about the denial of rights. In my community, there are three sectors: the controlled primary sector, the maintained primary sector and the integrated primary sector. We are back to the concept of rights, and to the discussion on the bill of rights that we had at the last meeting. The allocation of resources is finite. It is one thing to have a right; it is another thing to have the necessary economic rationing of resources to exercise that right.

The community has gone down the road of maintained and controlled education sectors. However, the same dispensation has been given to the formation of integrated schools, as has been given to the formation of Irish-medium education: before a school can be opened, there does not have to be a minimum number of pupils. That is not the case for the controlled sector, which must be able to show a greater number of potential pupils before a school can be opened. Parents may wish to have educational rights, but those rights must be tempered by financial constraint.

Mrs Long: Dermot raised two issues. First, a person can be a British citizen but consider himself or herself to be Irish. That is not a conflict. Others at the table may see that as a conflict, but I do not.

When I referred to rights, it was not in the context that every child who wished to have a place in an integrated school should have that right funded by the state.

Mr Nesbitt: Sorry, you said: “were denied the right”.

Mrs Long: Yes. Integrated education is underfunded, and, therefore, children do not always have the opportunity to exercise that right. My point was how the other two sectors are treated when compared with the integrated sector. I was not saying that every child who wishes to should be able to have an integrated education, although the Alliance Party wants to see the time when that will be the case.

I realise that the discussion has become very focused on education. The Alliance Party submitted a proposal under the “Shared future” sub-heading. The discussion has been very informative, because there has been some agreement about the outcome — albeit that members have not agreed on the mechanism needed to achieve that outcome. There seems to have been some agreement, however, among the parties on the aspiration for a single, shared education system.

I propose that all parties endorse the aspiration of having a single, shared education system in Northern Ireland. We are not arguing about its mechanisms at this stage but about the aspiration.

Mr Poots: We seem to have become bogged down in education, and it has had a reasonable airing here. I expect that most people agree with what Naomi said, but I am not sure about the SDLP. Is it still looking for an opt-out for faith schools? If there were an opt-out for faith schools, it would have to go beyond the Roman Catholic sector as it is now.

Other issues must be addressed. Paramilitaries are viewed as an answer to problems in some local communities, but they are working to ensure that a shared future does not exist in many communities. They ensure that people from other faiths do not go into certain areas or are made to feel uncomfortable when there. If we are not prepared to address paramilitarism, and if paramilitary organisations are not prepared to disappear, it will be difficult — particularly in working-class areas — to deal with issues relating to a shared future.

The Housing Executive is supposed to be signed up to a shared future, yet it is proposing to erect Irish-language signage in an area before anybody moves in. That indicates that the area is a nationalist or republican area, and not one in which unionists would feel comfortable. The Housing Executive — a state body — is adopting policies that fly in the face of the so-called commitment to a shared future. Therefore there are matters other than education to address.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): To conclude on education, Naomi proposed that all parties endorse the aspiration of having a single, shared education system in Northern Ireland. Is there consensus on that?

Members indicated dissent.

Mr Kennedy: The issue of education is complex and detailed, and we could not expect a recommendation to gain consensus after such a brief discussion. It did go on for a while, but in itself it is a brief discussion that we have had today. It would not be sensible or useful to make recommendations on such a weighty subject at this early stage.

Mrs Long: It has never been my approach to this Committee to try to be unhelpful; I have always tried to be helpful. I simply noted that there appeared to be consensus around the aspiration of a single, shared education system. That does not, in any way, tie it down; it leaves it open. I would have thought that there would be very little valid reason, regardless of the complexities of the education system, to find fear hidden in that proposal. It was not my intention to back people into corners.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We do not have consensus, so we will set it aside for the moment.

Mr Kennedy: I have listened carefully to the debate, and I have identified in some of the statements the premise that the controlled sector and the maintained sector have somehow been fostering some degree of sectarianism and bigotry in their education systems. I strongly refute that, and I defend both systems from that. If the curriculum needs to be extended to educate better our children in Irish history, British history, Northern Ireland culture or anything else, the current systems can address that.

I am a strong admirer of the Catholic form of education and the ethos that is attached to it. I do not subscribe to it, but I can easily recognise its importance within the Roman Catholic community, not only in Northern Ireland, or in Ireland, but throughout the world. To raise expectations that we could somehow find an easy solution to a complex problem would create as many problems as it is likely to solve.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We do not have consensus.

Mrs Long: With regard to any implied criticism of the current school system, it is worth putting on record that, from my perspective, the current system is a product of the difficulties in our society. It is not the architect of those problems. It is not my party’s position to infer that the schools are the problem. That is not the case. The separation of children at an early age contributes to the problem, notwithstanding that the schools themselves have done a significant amount of work to try to overcome that separation and to increase cross-community contact. It is not a reflection on the schools, because they did not create our problems. My comments, and my party’s stance, should not be interpreted in a way that would suggest that that was our position.

Mr Paisley Jnr: We are in real danger of talking in circles and navel-gazing here. If Mr Hain picks up Hansard from this meeting, he will rush forward to 24 November. This debate is going absolutely nowhere. We are now in an apologetic mood: “Hang on, we might have offended some school systems. We had better clarify our position for Hansard’s sake, and protect ourselves in case schoolteachers say that they will not vote for us next time.”

Mrs Long: I hope that that is not an interpretation of my making my position clear.

Mr Paisley Jnr: This qualifying, re-qualifying and protecting our backsides in case something has been said that should not have been said is a nonsense. Schools are not a product of the problem here. Schools have been here. We are all clear that the problem has been years of terrorism and abuse that has gone on in this society.

We are trying to move away from that, and we should move away from talking in circles. We have decided to spend the lion’s share of today’s meeting on this matter, so everyone who has spoken obviously thinks that it important enough. As I said earlier, to siphon off education as the one issue that will resolve good relations and our shared future is just wrong.

For a start, we will not resolve the education problem here. Secondly, and more importantly, neither integrated education nor changing the education system will address the big problems that have led to a divided society and to the bad relations and mistrust that exist. Yes, there is a layer of it in there, but it is not the lion’s share of the problem. Much of what we have been talking about is “mom and apple pie” stuff: it would be great if we could all just sit down and have a collective societal hug, and we will all get on better if it happens at school.

We need to get back to basics on why there have been bad relations in this society and why we need a good-relations strategy. That returns us to the fact that we are trying to rebuild a society that has been at war. That war has had nothing whatsoever to do with the education system, and we should stop indirectly knocking the schools, which we have been doing, and start to address the issue that has led to the division, and that is terrorism. We have been dancing around that elephant in the room all day, and we should start facing up to that.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Let us not return to the issue of education.

Mr Brolly: I just want to apologise for starting all this. I wish to make some reference to culture. A Protestant does not have to have a Catholic licence to speak Irish or to enjoy the wide variety of cultures that are available on the whole island. Many Protestant unionists do love the island.

I have a particular liking for what is now described as Ulster-Scots music. There is a terrific affinity between traditional Irish and Scots cultures. Everybody should accept that culture belongs to them and that there are no doors barred to people who get involved in cultural Irish activities. I can play any game that I like, whether it be cricket or Gaelic football.

2.15 pm

Mrs Long: I distance myself from the view that the only problem in our society is terrorism. It is certainly a significant problem; however, the divisions that exist in our society, when terrorism is removed, must be dealt with in order for there to be good relations.

The reason that we must keep qualifying our remarks is because other people wilfully misrepresent what we have said. At the outset, I said that education was only one layer of a multi-faceted problem, yet, because a full discussion on education has ensued, it is being talked about as though it were the only important issue. It certainly is not.

For example, the promotion and maintenance of mixed housing, and how housing is managed within society, were raised. I would be quite happy to explore those issues. However, one must go with the flow of the discussion. At that point, the discussion was about education. If members want to proceed to issues such as the ‘A Shared Future’ action plan, or, indeed, other issues that they want to raise, that would be helpful. We have to recognise that terrorism has been, and still is, a huge problem for our community. However, good relations, and the interplay between people who are not terrorists, still needs to be addressed.

Mr Poots: Terrorism is the big issue, and it affects the outworking of many issues relating to a shared future and good relations.

Paramilitary organisations are the biggest problem that we have, because they still retain a grip over their communities. They are still recruiting, still engaging in criminal activity, and still involved in low-grade intimidation if not the more severe kind that took place over many years.

Ultimately, people want the Assembly to be up and running. We are saying that particular paramilitary groups have political representation and that there is no mission whatsoever of an Assembly getting up and running while those paramilitary groups exist. We must get those groups off our backs before there can be progress on a shared future. Other matters will fall into place when the paramilitaries are taken out of the system.

Mrs Long: With regard to paramilitarism, people’s understanding of the rule of law is being addressed in the PFG Committee dealing with law and order issues. The discussion that I believed we were to have today was on good community relations.

If the DUP wants to frame the discussion around terrorism, and make proposals as to how it thinks it should be dealt with, I am sure that everyone would be keen to address them. As I have already said, there is more to community relations than paramilitarism, albeit that that is part and parcel of it. However, if the DUP simply wants to hijack the discussion on community relations, it seems that we will be simply replaying discussions on the rule of law, which are being addressed in a different strand of this Committee.

Mr Poots: We have discussed education for an hour.

Mrs Long: Education is not being discussed by the PFG Committee in any of its other formats.

Mr Poots: I do not believe that by focusing on paramilitarism for five minutes, we are hijacking the discussion.

Ms Lewsley: As Ian Paisley Jnr mentioned, we have gone around in circles for an hour and a half, and now we are going around in circles again. Members know that parties will differ on various issues within “Shared future”. I hoped that the Committee could agree some basic principles. That was demonstrated in some of the proposals that were put forward earlier. I suggest that we proceed and consider some of the proposals that have been made.

Mr Kennedy: I largely subscribe to that. We have given it a good flogging all afternoon. I suggest that the other parts of the agenda — the past and its legacy, culture and confidence building — should be referred to another session. They are deserving of proper concentration and a proper detailed response. We should wrap up “Shared future” and “Good relations” and leave ourselves fresh for another sitting.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I think that that was the intention. We can take on the entire agenda if people are happy. [Laughter.]

Have we any proposals at this stage?

Mr McCarthy: Alliance proposes that all parties endorse the ‘A Shared Future’ framework document of March 2005 and its first triennial action plan of April 2006, and regard their implementation as critical to political progress.

Mr Paisley Jnr: There is not enough “mom and apple pie” in there; it is very specific.

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

Members indicated dissent.

Mr Paisley Jnr: It is far too specific.

Mrs Long: That being the case, Alliance further proposes that all parties stress their commitment to building a shared future.

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

Members indicated assent.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): There is a proposal that the Equality Commission should be identified as the primary body responsible for promoting good relations. Have we consensus on that?

Members indicated dissent.

Mr Poots: I proposed that all parties call for the immediate stand-down of all paramilitary organisations as the best contribution towards a shared future.

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

Members indicated assent.

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

Is there any other business? Mr Nesbitt asked whether he could put his document from this morning on the website as part of this meeting. Is there agreement on that?

Members indicated assent.

The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The date of the next meeting of the PFG Committee is 21 August; it will deal with the institutional issues.

Mr Kennedy: Given the deadlines that have now been created, are the outstanding issues the only ones to be dealt with by the Committee? Are our officials confident that we are on course to complete our remaining deliberations?

The Committee Clerk: Yes, according to the schedule, we are on track.

Adjourned at 2.24 pm.

< previous / next >