COMMITTEE ON THE Friday 15 September 2006 Members in attendance for all or part of proceedings: The Committee met at 10.13 am. (The Chairman (Mr Molloy) in the Chair.) The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I remind Members to switch off their mobile phones, because they interfere with the recording. Are any new members present today? The SDLP’s Pat Ramsey is deputising for Seán Farren. Ms Lewsley: I am deputising for Mark Durkan. Mr McGuigan: I am deputising for Conor Murphy. Ms Ruane: I am deputising for either Michelle Gildernew or Martin McGuinness. Mr McCausland: I am not sure for whom I am deputising. Lord Morrow: You are deputising for Ian Paisley Jnr. Mr Nesbitt: I am here on behalf of Alan McFarland, and Derek Hussey will be here on behalf of Danny Kennedy. David McNarry will not be present today. Mr Ford: Ecstatic cheers. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do members have any interests to declare? Members indicated dissent. Mr Ford: Chairman, I expect to be joined this morning by Kieran McCarthy, who will be deputising for Naomi Long. I must leave later, and at that point Kieran will replace me, as Naomi should be here by then. Lord Morrow: That is very clear. [Laughter.] Mr Ford: Clearer than Dermot generally is. Mr Nesbitt: Chairman, as I mentioned at our first meeting, this need to state who is deputising for whom at every meeting is crazy. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): It is just procedure. Lord Morrow: Dermot, you are only a sub. Mr Nesbitt: I know that I am only a sub. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): There is an amendment to the minutes of 8 September 2006. On page 3, item 4 states that the: “deliberations on the sub-group’s report would not be included in Hansard.” That should read: “deliberations on the report would not be included in Hansard.” Ms Ruane: What page are we on? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We are looking at “Agenda item 2”, paragraph 4 of the draft minutes. The Committee Clerk: It is on the third page. Ms Ruane: I do not know where we are. The pages are not numbered. 10.15 am The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We are taking the word “subgroup’s” out of the minute. “Agenda item 2”, paragraph 4 of the minutes reads: “It was agreed that the Committee’s deliberations on the subgroup’s report”, but it should just read “deliberations on the report.” Lord Morrow: Can you take us through that again? I begin to think that I have not the right folder. I certainly cannot see that under item 4. The Committee Clerk: It is on the third page of the minutes, “Agenda item 2”, in paragraph 4. Lord Morrow: Are these pages numbered? The Committee Clerk: No. Ms Ruane: It is at paragraph 4, “Agenda item 2”. Lord Morrow: “Agenda item 2”? The Committee Clerk: Where it says “the Committee’s deliberations”, not “the subgroup’s deliberations”. Lord Morrow: Thank you. Mr Ford: I suggest a minor modification. Near the bottom of page 2, it is recorded that I left the meeting at 11.10 am, which is accurate. However, I left after the discussion on the minutes, so that should be recorded above paragraph 4, which we have been talking about. It was such fun that I wish to be recorded as having been here. Lord Morrow: I take it that you are assuming no responsibility for them, is that right? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We will have your departure noted in the correct place. With those changes made, are the minutes agreed? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We move on to matters arising. They include consideration of the invitation to a meeting with Monica McWilliams, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commissioner. The revised list of dates and times is at tab 2 of your papers. It will help to agree a date today. The meeting can take place on Thursday 5 October or Friday 6 October. There is a problem with 6 October, in that on that day the PFG Committee will consider the ‘Second Report of the Subgroup on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland’. The Committee Clerk: The subgroup is due to report on 4 October, so we will probably be looking at its report on that day. Mr Nesbitt: What will the Committee will be doing on 6 October? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The economic subgroup’s second report is to be considered, either in the morning or afternoon. It is a matter of balancing between the two. Ms Ruane: Is the meeting urgent? Can we not meet on 19 October? Ms Lewsley: I propose 5 October. Does that suit members? Ms Ruane: I am not free on 5 October. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The 5 and the 19 October have been suggested. Lord Morrow: The 5 October would be better. Ms Ruane: The 5 October is difficult. Ms Lewsley: The 6 October is out, so that leaves 19 October. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Is 19 October suitable? Mr Ford: Unless the Prime Minister and Taioseach invite some of us elsewhere, which is still possible. Ms Lewsley: That is a problem in that week. Mr Ford: The 19 October does not suit. Lord Morrow: The letter from the Human Rights Commissioner suggests Thursday 5 October 9.30 am – 12.30 pm, with lunch from 12.30pm – 1.30 pm. Is that her proposal? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Yes. Lord Morrow: She wants lunch from 12.30 pm – 1.30 pm? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Yes. That is what is being offered. The meeting will be outside this building, perhaps in a hotel, and the commission will provide lunch. Ms Lewsley: You do not have to stay for lunch. That is optional. Lord Morrow: I understand that. The Committee Clerk: Or the meeting could be held in the afternoon and start with lunch. Ms Lewsley: We can have an afternoon meeting, but that would be on 6 October, which is the day for the economic subgroup report. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): That would make it difficult on that date, but it may be possible to have both on 6 October. Mr Nesbitt: I am happy with either date. However, I am curious to know what the Human Rights Commission’s view is on a symposium. I would like some guidance on how the meeting will be structured before it takes place. Will the representatives of the Human Rights Commission make a presentation? Will they give it to us beforehand? Will we question them on their presentation? What format will it take? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I have no details. However, the suggestion is that discussion will be about a bill of rights. The Human Rights Commission representatives will make a presentation and then engage in general discussion with the political parties. Mr Nesbitt: If they make a brief presentation, we can ask them to send it to the officials in advance so that we can see it. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We should ask them for as much information as possible before the meeting. Ms Lewsley: I propose that the meeting take place on 5 October 2006. Caitríona has agreed to that. I worry that a meeting on 19 October might drift into the period of negotiations. Ms Ruane: In light of that, we will work around 19 October. Mr Nesbitt: I am concerned, not that we will drift into negotiations, but that the negotiations will drift. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Let us not get into the negotiations. Do members agree with Patricia’s suggestion of 5 October? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The next part of this meeting is in closed session for consideration of the report. The Committee met in private session from 10.20 am to 12.08 pm. On resuming— 12.08 pm The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Members have the two suggested motions for debate. Mr McGuigan: Can we take a five-minute break to consider them? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We break for lunch at 12.20 pm. Ms Lewsley: Can we break early for lunch? Mr Nesbitt: There are two motions before the Committee. Which one has the same layout and wording as the one that we discussed last week? The Committee Clerk: The second one. Last week, the Committee identified specific issues requiring resolution and further discussion in its report. Mr Ford: We did not. Mr Nesbitt: We had a motion before the Assembly on Monday 11 and Tuesday 12 September, and the wording, phrasing and format of the second one — [Interruption.] The Committee Clerk: The motion on the economic subgroup’s report was quite different because that report had specific recommendations. None of the PFG Committee reports contains specific recommendations. They contain either proposals agreed, proposals not agreed or issues identified for further discussion or resolution. There are two different sets of wordings because when the motions were drawn up we did not know whether this PFG Committee would identify issues for further resolution or discussion, which it has now decided not to do. Therefore the wording in the second motion would not cover the report. The first motion has a suggested wording. Mr Nesbitt: What is the wording of the first motion? The Committee Clerk: It is a suggested wording, but it does not reflect the motion for the economic subgroup’s report, which makes specific recommendations. Mr Nesbitt: None of those motions is the same as the economic subgroup’s one. The Committee Clerk: No. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We will break for lunch and resume at 12.45 pm. The Committee was suspended at 12.11 pm. On resuming — 12.47 pm The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I remind members to switch off any mobile phones that may have been on over the lunch break because they interfere with the Hansard recording equipment. Ms Ruane: Sinn Féin has agreed the content of the report but will not ratify it, because reports are being used as the basis for talking-shop debates. We will not participate in that sham for all the reasons that we have outlined. It is obvious from Ian Paisley’s comments two days ago that the DUP has no notion of, or interest in, power sharing before 24 November. Therefore Sinn Féin will not ratify reports until it sees how they contribute to restoration. If we are satisfied, at some point in the future, that the reports have such a contribution to make, we will revisit the matter. However, we are not prepared to take part in shams and at the moment will not support the report. We do not agree to its being published or to a motion going forward to the Secretary of State. Mr McCarthy: I propose that we accept the first of the two motions that were presented to us for a plenary debate and forward that to the Secretary of State. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Caitríona, what do you mean by not ratifying the report? Ms Ruane: Sinn Féin agrees with the content of the report but will not ratify it. We do not accept that the report be published or that it go forward to the Secretary of State, because it is not agreed. Ms Lewsley: In that case, may I ask for a point of information? My understanding is that when members were asked at each stage of this report whether they agreed it, Sinn Féin said yes. Yet you are saying now that you do not agree the report. Ms Ruane: No. In answer to your point of information, Sinn Féin agrees the content of the report, which is why I asked the Chairperson earlier whether the report would be ratified. We do not agree to its being ratified or published, nor do we agree to the motion. Mr McGuigan: In essence, that means that the content of the report is a true and accurate reflection of what was discussed. Lord Morrow: You can support it. Mr McGuigan: Sinn Féin agrees that it is a true and accurate reflection of what was discussed. As Caitríona has clearly pointed out, we do not want the report to be ratified, published or used as the basis for a sham debate. Ms Lewsley: I am sorry that Sinn Féin has taken that stance, particularly given the issues that have been discussed in the Committee. In my opening remarks at the beginning of this sequence of meetings, I said that we had made history by getting all the political parties around one table. We have agreed on several issues — there were some on which we disagreed — but the amount of consensus that we reached was positive. Sinn Féin’s stance now is a bit ironic, given that it was going to agree to a comprehensive agreement that referred to talking shops, a shadow Assembly and all the rest. We have done a lot of work, and we are trying to move this matter forward so that we can hold a debate in the Chamber to show the public that political parties can work collectively and deliver for people on issues such as disability and poverty, but now Sinn Féin is reneging on its responsibility. Ms Ruane: We welcome the discussions, which are important, but we should not claim that we are making history. We work with other parties in councils and in education and library boards, but we will not participate in sham debates or discussions, because we could hold those discussions anywhere. The institutions should be up and running. Who are the blocks to the restoration of the institutions? Who is their party leader? Let us examine what the party leaders have said. Our party leader is clear that there are no blocks to restoration. Your party leader, Mr Ian Paisley — Mr Poots: Speak through the Chair. Ms Ruane: I am not finished. Your party leader — Mr Poots: On a point of order, she should speak through the Chair. Ms Ruane: Mr Ian Paisley, the party leader of Edwin, Nelson and Maurice, has said that there will be no deal before 24 November. The essential question is: who is blocking the deal? Who is wasting people’s time? Mr Poots: The IRA. Ms Ruane: Patricia Lewsley mentioned Sinn Féin, but let us place the focus where it should be. Mr Poots: The IRA does not know how to go away. Lord Morrow: This is another turnaround by Sinn Féin. On the Business Committee, Sinn Féin said that, if the Committee on the Preparation for Government were established, it would be prepared to discuss and debate anything that emanated from it. However, now that the Committee’s deliberations are ready for publication and ready for debate, Sinn Féin is saying, “No. Hide it away, and do not tell anyone about it”. She says that we are the sole blockers to the restoration of devolution, because of Dr Paisley’s statement on Wednesday. However, I heard Dermot Nesbitt saying that his party would not go into Government, and I think that she heard that too, but has deliberately decided to ignore it for reasons best known to herself. It is horrendous that members have given up a great deal of their time to attend the Committee meetings and have discussed all the relevant issues, only to be told that this report should not be debated in the Assembly. Why come here and waste your time if you feel that these matters have no life beyond a discussion? We highlighted areas where we sincerely feel that there can be no movement until a host of issues has been addressed, but you feel that that is not relevant in today’s world, or relevant to the deadline of 24 November. The Secretary of State pulled that date out of the sky — we did not come up with it. Sinn Féin has not signed up to policing, and it has no intention of doing so. We knew from day one that that party would not support the security forces and the police in their drive against all the shenanigans that have gone on in this country, because, often, Sinn Féin is part of them. Before you throw all your stones at us, take a look at what is happening in your own backyard, because you will find that there may be a problem there. Mr McGuigan: I want to clarify a few points. Patricia mentioned debates and delivering for people. The truth is that the debates that have taken place in the Assembly Chamber are not delivering for people. The only way to deliver for people who want issues to be discussed and legislation to be passed is to get the institutions up and running as envisaged under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. That is not happening at the moment. Sinn Féin has said, at the Business Committee and at these Committee meetings, that if there were genuine issues and a genuine attempt to get the institutions up and running by 24 November, it would consider taking part in plenary sittings. As Caitríona has quite clearly outlined, the DUP has not made that genuine attempt, and, until that happens, Sinn Féin will not take part in plenaries. Patricia might think that these debates are delivering for people, but they are not. The only way in which we can deliver for people is to have the Government, the institutions — including the all-Ireland institutions — up and running so that we can do the real work and put this Committee’s work into action. Mr McCausland: The comments from Caitríona Ruane were bizarre and disingenuous. It is clear that she has been sent here today to say no, and she has done that. It is an insult to the democratic process and to the other political parties who have given of their time and commitment to contribute to the discussions and to the production of a report. If I were to speculate on the reasons that Sinn Féin has taken this action, my first suggestion would be that Sinn Féin cannot cope with equality, particularly in this case. It prefers that others be discriminated against to the advantage of its community, and, in particular, Sinn Féin. It is disappointing that it cannot cope with equality, and that is one of the reasons that its members constantly say no to all these issues. The party is probably unwilling to stand on the Floor of the Assembly and expose the cracks and the differences within the ranks that we have witnessed here on a number of issues. Mr McGuigan has been in some difficulty at times. Lord Morrow: He has been in the vanguard. Mr McCausland: Indeed, he has been very much to the fore of some of that confusion. There have been a couple of notable examples of that, which was interesting. The key word is “delivery”. If the institutions or devolution are to be restored — or whatever we want to be restored — in Northern Ireland, there must be delivery. That means that republicans have to deliver what they were supposed to deliver years ago. That means delivering up the proceeds of all the criminality and getting to the same place as every other democratic party. That means becoming a truly democratic party that is not inextricably linked to criminality and gangsterism. Furthermore, the Government have to deliver the equality that the people in this country are entitled to and that they have been denied for far too long. Cultural, community and educational equality are all important and must be delivered before we can start to get anywhere. I doubt whether they can be delivered by 24 November. Whether the deadline is 24 December or 24 January or 24 of any other month, the onus is on people to start delivering. We know that they must be delivered and simply sending Caitríona Ruane along today to say no is an insult. Ms Lewsley: I am saddened because this issue has turned into a personal attack. It is misrepresentative, and it is an example of political grandstanding because Hansard is here to record this meeting for future reference. To clarify a couple of points: when I talked to Philip about delivering for the people, I meant it in a political sense. People think that every MLA is sitting at home with their feet up, doing nothing. This was our opportunity to show people that we are serious about equality, human rights, victims and the disappeared, and so on. It was an opportunity to allow parties to put their views on record so that the public can see how each party felt about every issue and to let the public know that we have not been doing nothing all summer. It is a slap in the face for all those members — particularly those in your party, Philip — who gave up their time every Friday to contribute to the debate. To respond to Caitríona, I replied to you today because you raised the issue. It is on record in Hansard that, for the past number of weeks, I have attacked the DUP and any other party that I think is blocking restoration. That is on record. My party made a proposal asking both those parties to live up to their responsibilities. I would like Caitríona to clarify one point: is she telling me that Sinn Féin is denouncing the comprehensive agreement? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We will come back to that. 1.00 pm Mr P Ramsey: With reference to the motion, the SDLP will support the proposal made by Mr McCarthy. This is my first time at the Committee, and it has been a learning curve. A hell of a lot of good work has been done recently on a huge range of subjects that would have caused major difficulties in the past. There would have been huge dissent on a number of areas: safeguards, a bill of rights, human rights, equality, good relations and the whole shared future aspect. The public will be looking expectantly to see what the Assembly can do in this mode. The SDLP does not want to be in this mode. It wants to see a fully restored Government back in Northern Ireland, but in the absence of that, it will endeavour to do what it can to make a difference. To a certain extent Caitríona is right. We want to see whether the Secretary of State will take heed of the series of motions debated in the Assembly. However, I am disappointed with the hypocrisy. Sinn Féin signed up to an agreement to what would, in essence, be similar to a shadow Assembly — similar to what is happening at present. What has changed? Is it because so many secret were deals done at that time with the British Government that enabled it to sneak in the on-the-runs legislation? It is disappointing. “We can agree in principle to the report, but we will not ratify it.” That is nonsense. It is nonsense that Sinn Féin members are sitting on the Committee very productively and responsibly, participating on a range of issues that resulted in an executive summary and safeguards for equality and victims, but they will not debate it in the Chamber with the rest of us. That is what the people of Northern Ireland want. I do not understand. Sinn Féin got a secret deal, and it even went into the Assembly Chamber and debated it, but it will not go in now to debate the fundamental difficulties of our society over the past 30 years. We have the gift to cure it by introducing legislation that will give people equality, fair employment, and safeguards, and make this society a better place. I am not having a go at Sinn Féin but, like Patricia, I cannot understand why the minute that Hansard starts reporting proceedings there is a rant from Sinn Féin saying that it does not want this published now and that it will not agree to this document now because the Committee is in public sitting. There is something wrong, and only Sinn Féin can answer that. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The Committee can ask Hansard to leave if Members prefer. It is not about Hansard. Ms Lewsley: It seems to be. Mr Nesbitt: I do not agree with Hansard’s leaving. I will ask a question and if the answer is not immediate, I will make a comment. Sinn Féin said that it does not agree with the report being published or going forward. Does that mean that it does not go forward and it is not published? Sinn Féin clearly said that it agreed with the report but it will not take it forward because debate on the report will be just a talking shop. However, Sinn Féin has no notion or interest in sharing power with unionists. Let me make one succinct comment, which is not to grandstand, as Patricia said. The president of Sinn Féin went to the Middle East 10 days ago, and his press statement was issued on 3 September. I do not have a copy with me because I did not know what Sinn Féin was going to say today. In that statement he referred to the principles of solving problems, which were transferable between the Middle East and here — although we are sitting here in an equality-based committee with human rights. One of the principles he mentioned was — and I quote him verbatim: “respect for human rights and international law”. If the party of which Mr Adams is president fully respected human rights and fully abided by international law, there would not be a blockage to devolution in Northern Ireland. I put the onus, fairly and squarely, on Sinn Féin and the Government because they acquiesce and accommodate Sinn Féin in its non-compliance with international human rights law. In conclusion, had the Sinn Féin president, the members of that party and its associated organisation abided by his words, there would not be a problem today. Rather than a talking shop, there would be a functioning democratic institution in Northern Ireland. That is where the blame for the blockage lies. Mr Poots: I do not want to pay much attention to what Caitríona Ruane said because everybody knows who has truly caused the blockage. It is not Ian Paisley, but “Slab” Murphy and his IRA colleagues, who now have the upper hand and are up to their eyeballs in criminality. No political settlement will be achieved until that criminality is dealt with and Sinn Féin signs up to the policing structures. Can I confirm that the Committee agreed the report? Ms Ruane: The content has been agreed. Mr Poots: I want to ask the Clerks what the next step is once the report has been agreed. Mr Nesbitt: I also want to ask that question. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): There must be agreement on whether the report will be printed. I interrupted Caitríona — she wants to make a point about the executive summary. We must deal with certain issues about the report. Mr Nesbitt: On a point of procedure, Mr Chairman. I understand that Sinn Féin members have agreed the report. However, they do not agree with its publication. If all parties have agreed the report, but all parties do not agree to its being published, does that mean that it will not be published? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): There must be consensus on whether the report will be published. Mr Nesbitt: Sinn Féin has, therefore, shifted its position, which it has now clarified. During the debate on whether to agree the economic subgroup’s report, Sinn Féin acquiesced, if only by silence, that the report be published. The report was agreed and published, despite Sinn Féin’s non-attendance at the debate. Sinn Féin made it clear at its ardchomhairle that unless it was given directions about the way forward up until 24 November, it would reserve judgement as to whether it would participate in the Assembly debate. In the event, it did not participate. Now, it is ratcheting up that position: it agreed that the economic subgroup’s report should be published; now it says that it disagrees with the publication of the PFG Committee’s report. Let us be clear that that party is ratcheting up the ante. Mr Poots: I want to finish asking my questions. I have not been given a clear response. It was my understanding that the report was agreed before lunch time and that, afterwards, we would proceed to discussion on the motion. There is no doubt that the report was agreed before lunch time. Let us be clear about that. What step is taken after the report has been agreed? Do we need consensus for the report to be published? I thought that publication was a natural step taken thereafter and that no party could agree the content of the report but prevent its publication. Could you clarify that? The Committee Clerk: I have no answer to that question. Before the Committee was suspended, I understood that it had agreed that the report be printed. The question was put and there was consensus. [Interruption.] The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Let the Committee Clerk answer the question. The Committee Clerk: Once a report is ordered to be printed, the Committee normally discusses a motion for debate in plenary session, which then goes to the Business Committee. I understood that we were discussing the motion for debate. Mr Poots: That is correct. We are discussing the motion. Therefore we cannot go back and undo this morning’s work. It has already been agreed. I do not know whether these members have been involved before in democratic structures. When matters are agreed, it is impossible to undo them without a proper motion to rescind. I have heard no motion to rescind, and that motion to rescind would have to be agreed. The report is now agreed and publication will take place. Sinn Féin is free to table a motion to rescind that and stop the publication. It is free to do that; the Committee may agree or disagree. I suspect that it will disagree. Mr Nesbitt: Exactly. I understand that the report is agreed, but does Sinn Féin not agree to its publication? Can I have an answer to that? Ms Ruane: That is not the situation. First, what I said was that Sinn Féin agrees the content of the report. Please let me finish, Dermot. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): One at a time, please. If we are to have continuous interruptions there is no point in continuing. Ms Ruane: I will not start until I have space to speak. Members will recall that when we began to discuss the Executive Summary, I asked whether the report would be put to us for ratification. I was cut off by the Chairperson and told: “We are dealing with this part of the report now” or words to that effect. We agree that the content of the report is an accurate reflection; however, Sinn Féin does not agree, ratify or agree to publication of the report. I am not finished yet. Members will please bear with me. Ms Lewsley: I have a point of information. I will be brief. Ms Ruane: I will not give way. I wish to answer Ms Lewsley’s comments. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Please continue, Ms Ruane. Ms Ruane: As to Nelson’s comments about insult to democracy, the greatest insult to democracy was when his party leader refused, on the Floor of the Assembly, to share power with Sinn Féin and the other parties. As to equality issues, Sinn Féin firmly put equality and human rights onto the agenda in the Good Friday Agreement along with other parties; it is a major concern for the party and will continue to be. Sinn Féin is not afraid of debate with the DUP — we welcome it. The DUP is the one that runs away from debate; it is afraid to share platforms. I am not finished yet. I listened to you, Maurice, when you had your say. Here we are, parliamentarians elected by the people, but there is no parliament. It is a joke, and it is wrong. Surely members want real power to change things. As for Ms Lewsley’s comments on delivering, we are not delivering here. Just because we have sat down to discussions does not mean that we are delivering. Her party leader talked of Wendy houses. That perception is accurate. Who decides what is discussed? Who decides what is changed? A foreign Prime Minister, who is not elected in any part of Ireland. For the record, and for the benefit of the SDLP, Sinn Féin’s context is the entire Good Friday Agreement, not just the north of Ireland. Pat mentioned “Northern Ireland” – to use his terminology – but the context embraces the Assembly, the all-Ireland institutions, human rights and equality agendas and the British-Irish dimension. If we really want democracy — the democracy that he spoke so lovingly about — let us get the institutions up and running and stop putting pretend blocks in the way. In case there is any confusion, we did not agree or ratify the report. We agreed the content of the report, but we did not have the opportunity to discuss the ratification of the report. That is the question that I asked before we discussed any of the other issues. 1.15 pm Mr McGuigan: Ms Ruane has said a lot of what I intended to say. She rightly made the point that what we agreed this morning was the content of the report. We were interrupted, and she has now made the point that she intended to make earlier in the discussion. A few members have talked of people wanting to see MLAs engaged in debate. None of the people that I have talked to has said that; they want to see MLAs, in a serious manner and with serious authority, taking on and discussing the issues that are of concern to the people out there. Everybody knows the serious issues that face our society; I am not going to rehash them. The SDLP has referred on a couple of occasions to some imaginary agreement that Sinn Féin has signed up to about a talking-shop Assembly. Sinn Féin has signed up to nothing but the Good Friday Agreement. We will not settle for anything less. We want to see that agreement implemented before 24 November, as everyone who is serious about this process should. I agree that this Committee has done some good work over the summer. That is not what we are talking about. We want to see the good work that has been done implemented. It is not about MLAs debating for some sham reason to justify their jobs. Sham debates do not fool anybody out there. That may make MLAs think that they are doing the job, but it is not the job that they are meant to be doing. We were elected in the same way as everyone else. We want to do the serious job that we were elected to do. Agreeing this report and allowing it to go forward to debate would be an insult to the people who voted for us. We can agree the content of the report. The serious job between now and 24 November is to ensure that the institutions are restored. As yet, we have seen no serious suggestion from the DUP that it is going to even try to get them restored. It is pointless to have debates between now and 24 November, unless we get some signal from the DUP that it is prepared to act along with the rest of us in restoring the institutions — and not just the institutions here in the North, but also the all-Ireland institutions that can make a difference to people’s lives all over this island. Ms Lewsley: Can I ask for some clarification? My understanding was that we were going through this report piece by piece. We went through the things that we agreed and the things that we did not agree. We went through the 40 points, or whatever it was, and we agreed them collectively. Then we agreed the conclusions and the executive summary. It was only at that stage that Caitríona Ruane raised this issue. Sinn Féin agreed the things that we agreed and the things that we did not agree, and it agreed the conclusions. Lord Morrow: They did say that they were confused. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Let Patricia talk. Ms Lewsley: It was only when we got to the executive summary that Caitríona asked whether we were ratifying the whole report, but we agreed it as we went along. Sinn Féin agreed it. Ms Ruane: We did not agree it. Ms Lewsley: You did. The Chairman asked for consensus, and there was consensus. This beggars belief. Gerry Adams supported the comprehensive agreement provisions on institutional matters, which included a shadow Assembly. If that is not a talking shop, what is? That was on 7 December 2004, in a letter to the Taoiseach. I really do not want to get into this argument. What Sinn Féin is now doing is vetoing an opportunity for young people, disabled people, older people and even those who want to see an increase in the status of the Irish language to hear what the parties collectively have said. I would have respected Sinn Féin more if it had said at the very beginning — nearly six weeks ago — that it was not prepared to take part in debate. That would have saved us all, including Sinn Féin’s members, a lot of heartache and a lot of time. Mr McGuigan: We have not taken part in any debates. Our public position on debates is quite clear. Patricia seems to be confused about what we were doing this morning, but I think that it is very clear. We were agreeing the content of the report. As Caitríona tried to say before lunch, we never at any stage agreed what should happen with the report. We have no difficulty with agreeing that what is in this report is a true and accurate reflection — Ms Lewsley: That is not what you said. When the Deputy Speaker asked for consensus on each part of the report, the parties around the table said: “Yes.” Sinn Féin did not say: “Sorry, we are not agreeing this report; we are agreeing that it is a true and accurate record.” Not once did it say that. Mr McFarland: I apologise to the Committee for not being present this morning; I had an unbreakable engagement. Ms Lewsley: On a point of information, Mr McFarland, could you tell me who he is now? He substituted for you earlier. Mr McFarland: After lunch, I am me, and he is Danny Kennedy. Mr Nesbitt: For the Hansard record, the “he” to whom Mr McFarland and Ms Lewsley refer is Dermot Nesbitt. [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Let us be serious. Ms Lewsley: Sorry. Mr Nesbitt: We need to be light-hearted sometimes, Chairman. Lord Morrow: You are not allowed to be light-hearted. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Mr Nesbitt, your colleague is trying to speak. Mr Nesbitt: I would not wish to stop him. Mr McFarland: I have sat on the various formats of this Committee and have agreed the economic subgroup’s report and the policing and justice report. We are halfway through the institutions report, and things are going well. In reaching agreement on those reports, there has been a similar debate to this one. In the other formats of the Committee, and its subgroup, a system has evolved, which I suggest be used in this instance. It has taken quite a long time to develop, but it seems logical and effective. The system is as follows. The Committee agrees that the report is an accurate record of what has been said. Given that it is an accurate report, it is published, as has happened in all other formats of the Committee. There has then been a discussion on a possible motion related to that report. Agreeing the report is completely unconnected to agreeing to a debate on a motion. Martin McGuinness and Peter Robinson have discussed this matter ad nauseam. The content of the motion is unconnected with anything that happens subsequently, but it reflects that a report has been written. Previously, Sinn Féin has accepted reports as accurate records and agreed motions to go with those reports. There have then been healthy discussions about whether there should be a debate on the motion, which have ended in disagreement. The motion has been referred to the Business Committee to decide whether there should be a debate. In the two previous instances, I understand that the Business Committee has not been able to reach agreement. The motions have then been referred to the Secretary of State, and the debates have been held on his say-so. That seemed to be an extremely effective method of moving matters forward, while protecting everybody’s position. That allows us to have something to show for all the meetings since May, without disrupting Sinn Féin’s position on the Assembly. I suggest that that system be used to agree this report. If we are agreed that the contents are correct, that is fine and the report will be printed. We would then discuss the detail of a motion, which is completely unconnected with whether there should or should not be a debate. If we agree a motion to go with the report, we can get on with scrapping with one another about whether there should be a debate in the Assembly. I guarantee that this situation will be no different from that pertaining to any other report; there will not be agreement because Sinn Féin disagrees with having a debate in the Chamber. The motion would then be referred to the Business Committee, which would have a row about the motion and not agree it. As has been the case all summer, the motion would be referred to the Secretary of State. That system has been very effective and has worked well. Martin McGuinness, Peter Robinson and the rest of us have all been able to reach agreement. I am worried that we have become confused as to how the PFG Committee, in all its formats, has dealt with this situation before. Ms Ruane: I do not accept that this is a similar situation; there is a difference. Alan was not here this morning, but it is a matter of record that I asked the Chairperson for clarification as to whether we were ratifying the report. I was interrupted and was not permitted to raise that matter at that point. That is why we asked for an adjournment. We agree the content of the report, but we will not ratify it. Our reasons for that — in answer to Patricia — are that we came in good faith to try to get the institutions up and running. As Philip said, good work has been done. We had plenty of debate at different levels. Two days ago, Ian Paisley Snr said that there will be no agreement. Therefore if anyone is wasting people’s time, it is Ian Paisley, the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party. The difference is that we have not agreed. A week ago, the DUP said that it wanted to get the institutions up and running, although there were criticisms about the time frame. However, when the leader of a party speaks in such a categorical way, people take it that he speaks for the entire party. In the past, the reports that we agreed have been used for talking-shop debates. Sinn Féin will not participate in such debates and will not agree to the ratification or the printing of the report. We will not ratify the reports until we see how they contribute to restoration. This is very different from other situations. That should clarify the matter. Mr McCausland: The interview with Dr Paisley that Caitríona Ruane heard was obviously different from the one that I heard. My recollection is that, on coming out of 10 Downing Street, Dr Paisley said that he did not foresee the possibility of matters being put in order before 24 November 2006. That is not the categorical “No; never” that Caitríona Ruane suggests. He simply said it as he saw it at the time. Many share that view, because delivery is needed on so many issues, particularly criminality and equality, that it would be almost impossible to complete work on them by 24 November. For those reasons, Dr Paisley’s assessment of the position was reasonable and accurate. That assessment is now being twisted and perverted by Sinn Féin to justify its position, and to get itself off the hook. Sinn Féin wants to be the party to say no but does not want to take the flak for it, so it blames everyone else. Caitríona Ruane has obviously been given the difficult task of justifying Sinn Féin’s position. We looked at item 4 on the agenda, “Motion for Debate of Report”. If I am at item 4 on an agenda, I have passed item 3. That is simple, plain arithmetic. It was like that when I was at school and when I was teaching, and it has not changed: by the time you reach four, you have passed three. Caitríona Ruane may not have understood that. She may have been inept in how she handled the matter. At one point, Dermot wanted to raise a matter at a later stage only to be told that it should have been done earlier. I am emphatic that people on the other side said: “No, you cannot.” The problem for Caitríona Ruane is that she left it too late. She was inept. When you get to four, you have passed three. We are at item 4, so let us stick to that, because item 3 is finalised and finished. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Caitríona did make an intervention. I asked, perhaps wrongly, whether the issue concerned the executive summary, as regards the debate, and I said that the issue around the motion would come up later. I accept that we should, perhaps, have listened to that intervention at the time, but the issue was the debate. We do not have agreement on the printing and publishing of the report. Ms Lewsley: Could I ask for a point of information? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Dermot has been trying to speak for some time. Ms Ruane: Can a comment be withdrawn? I have just been called inept. I do not like that, and it is a breach — Lord Morrow: You called me a corner boy. Ms Ruane: No, I did not, actually. Lord Morrow: You did. Ms Ruane: No. Lord Morrow: There you go again. Ms Ruane: I want that comment to be withdrawn. Mr McCausland: The sensitivity of Caitríona Ruane knows no bounds. Ms Ruane: Could I have clarification from the officials on withdrawing remarks? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We have been trying to keep to appropriate language. Ms Ruane: Can we have clarification on that? I have asked for the comment to be withdrawn, please. Lord Morrow: Mr Chairman, you did not say anything to Caitríona Ruane when she called me a corner boy. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): You did not make a complaint about that. Lord Morrow: Yes I did. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I did not realise that you had. Lord Morrow: Yes I did. Ms Ruane: I would like some clarification. Lord Morrow: She would know more about corner boys than anyone else. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Can I take members’ views that both comments are not appropriate for this discussion? Members indicated assent. 1.30 pm Mr Nesbitt: That was a fascinating debate on the nuances of this matter. I will go through matters again so that I can understand where we are. I said that Sinn Féin agreed the report; Sinn Féin qualified that by saying that it agreed the content of the report. Sinn Féin is playing with words. I agree that Caitríona said at the outset that she would not ratify the report. As I understand it, ratification is a legal term. For example, if a Minister signs a report at some body, it will be ratified — or endorsed — by his Parliament. Therefore, he is acting on behalf of his party. That procedure does not apply here. We have agreed a report and we expect that those here are speaking, and acting, on behalf of their parties. By agreeing the contents of the report, those members are, in the same breath, ratifying it. There is no separate procedure. The real essence of the play on words by Sinn Féin is encapsulated by the words of Philip McGuigan, who said: “we never at any stage agreed what should happen with the report.” Sinn Féin’s problem is not with the report; it is with what happens to the report. That is what he said, and I wrote it down verbatim as he said it. If Sinn Féin does not agree to the report being published or moving forward, can it still be published and move forward? I ask that question because the report has been agreed. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I have said that consensus is required. Mr Nesbitt: Therefore, if we need consensus — with Sinn Féin not agreeing to the report’s publication — the report will not be published and will not go forward. I come back to the point that I made at the outset. Sinn Féin is upping the ante today. Previously, the ‘Report on the Economic Challenges Facing Northern Ireland’ was agreed, published, and went forward for debate. Sinn Féin has said that it will not participate in Assembly debates. Sinn Féin is upping the ante today — and it is disgraceful — by saying that it wants no one else to participate in the debate. Sinn Féin is trying to block a debate in the Assembly because of what would happen if the report went forward. You have upped the ante, Sinn Féin — that is what you have done. Ms Ruane: There is no Assembly, Dermot. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Let Dermot finish. Ms Ruane: Sorry, Mr Chairperson. Mr Nesbitt: There is an Assembly; whether it has executive, legislative or administrative powers is a different matter. Caitríona is correct in saying that this report is different from others. Of course, you are treating it differently — you are upping the ante. I have said that three or four times. Do you deny that? There is silence. Ms Lewsley: I want some clarification following Dermot’s comments. If there is consensus to agree the content of the report, what is the difference between that and ratifying the report? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The report moves to being printed. That is the next stage. Ms Lewsley: I would have assumed that, once the content of the report was agreed, it would be published automatically. The content has been agreed. Mr Nesbitt: Sinn Féin members are playing with words when they speak of ratification. Sinn Féin is trying to block the report and to block a debate in the Assembly; it is upping the ante. Ms Lewsley: Sinn Féin is creating a veto. Mr McGuigan: People are obviously not listening to what Caitríona and I are saying. Ian Paisley and the DUP upped the ante. That is the reality. We have been coming here in good faith for the past six or seven weeks, because we thought that other parties could possibly be genuine about trying to restore devolution and the institutions. As Caitríona said, it was not Sinn Féin that upped the ante, but the DUP. That party said publicly several times that it has no interest in reaching agreement by 24 November. As Nelson said, if there is no agreement by 24 November, the institutions will be closed. That is the reality. Mr Nesbitt: Will Philip take a question? Mr McGuigan: I want to answer your first question. You wrote down what I said about what should happen to the report. I said clearly several times, as did Caitríona, that we agreed this morning that what was in the report was a true and accurate reflection of the weeks of discussion. We can talk about playing with words, but we have agreed that the report is a true reflection. However, we do not agree that the report should be published and neither do we agree that it should be used for the purpose of a sham debate that many people here want to hold merely to justify their jobs. We do a great disservice to those who elected us by having such nonsense debates on important issues. Ms Lewsley: I am glad that you spoke of a nonsense debate on the status of the Irish language. Thank you. Mr McGuigan: No. Ms Lewsley: That is what you said. You said that it was a “nonsense debate”. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): One at a time, please, members. Mr McGuigan: If that is what I said, I chose the wrong words. People here have used the wrong words in many contexts, and they have not been pulled up for it. I am saying that the debates are nonsense: the topics, however, are not nonsense. We show great disrespect to the topics in the debates — and to the people who elected us — by justifying our taking part in the debates of an Assembly that has absolutely no power. We would do our electorate, and serious and important issues — the Irish language; equality; victims; and survivors — a much greater service by not addressing them in the Hain Assembly, Patricia. The only way to address them is through the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement. Mr Nesbitt: My question has not been answered. I noted what Dr Paisley said, but I put it on record today that the DUP is not the blockage: the party that I represent would not sit in Government today with Sinn Féin either. I put it to Sinn Féin for the fifth time: you have upped the ante. You have not participated in the debates so far, so you are now trying to ensure that no one participates in any debate. Are you upping the ante? Lord Morrow: It is a dictatorship. Ms Ruane: Philip answered your question, but I will answer it again: the DUP has upped the ante. It sounds as if you are speaking for the DUP. Mr Nesbitt: I am speaking for the Ulster Unionist Party. Ms Ruane: That is all right. We are very clear about the comments that Ian Paisley made. Sinn Féin is here in good faith; Ian Paisley has upped the ante. Perhaps members of his party differ from his opinion, because they are now trying to rewrite and revise what he said in order to justify it; however, it is obvious that they are uncomfortable with their leader’s remarks. Lord Morrow: No, we are not. Ms Ruane: We have made our position clear and we are not upping the ante. We are not participating in sham Assembly debates, and we will not pretend that everything in the garden is all right when it is not. We want the institutions up and running and we are here to discuss how that can be done. When we feel that there is a serious attempt at getting the institutions restored, we will review our position and will consider the report and how we take it forward. At the moment, however, we do not believe that, in the light of what Ian Paisley said, real discussions are taking place. Mr Nesbitt: I have listened to the explanation of your decision today. What has changed from the criteria that you listed for not participating in sham Assembly debates? The debate last Monday was, in your eyes, a sham debate, but you did not stop it. If the motion on this report goes forward to plenary, it will still be a sham debate. What is the difference? Ms Ruane: Past reports have been used to create sham debates, but we must look at the situation in the light of what Dr Paisley said. We will not be party to that or allow reports to create sham debates. We have to get real, and the DUP has to get real. You cannot have the party leader saying one thing, and Nelson McCausland rewriting and misinterpreting what he said. Mr P Ramsey: We all need to get real. Surely we are not going to spend another two hours on this matter. Sinn Féin is now saying — correct me if I am wrong — that because of something Ian Paisley said outside Downing Street, it is fundamentally changing its position on debates. Patricia is right: not only is Sinn Féin vetoing the debate, it is vetoing the right of all political parties to debate the issues that we have discussed. Sinn Féin was happy enough with Assembly Members meeting to discuss industrial derating, the economy and planning. Would Sinn Féin have delivered the shadow Assembly that it signed up to under the terms of the comprehensive agreement? It has not answered that question. Gerry Adams wrote a letter to the Taoiseach, and an article in ‘The Irish Times’ confirmed that Mr Adams had signed up to a shadow Assembly. What is the difference? That was a Hain Assembly too. There are people who are anticipating the outcomes of Assembly debates, whether or not Philip or Caitríona want to accept that. Those are the facts of life. There is huge anticipation out there for this Assembly to kick in. We want to know whether the Secretary of State will take heed of the debates out of which emerges a true consensus of public opinion. I do not know why Sinn Féin has spent four or five weeks deliberating on this whole range of subjects — human rights; civil rights; and equality. The only issue that it challenged in two hours this morning was the status of the Irish language. Sinn Féin agreed fundamentally and entirely with all of the matters that had been agreed and those that had not. There is something badly wrong. Philip and Caitríona, are you now saying that you want to stop other political parties from discussing equality, human rights and the future for victims in Northern Ireland? That is what you are saying. Mr Nesbitt: That is right. Mr McGuigan: Our position with regard to debates in the Assembly has not changed. Mr Nesbitt: It has. Mr McGuigan: Tell me how it has. It has not. Mr Nesbitt: I will tell you if you give me the time. Before today, you permitted debates to take place without your participation. Your position today is to not allow any — The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Dermot, I asked Philip to answer one question. Mr McGuigan: Sinn Féin’s position has always been that it would not engage in sham debates. A number of such debates have taken place in the Assembly Chamber, and Sinn Féin has not taken part in those. We have always said — and this is a matter of public record — that if there were a genuine attempt to get the institutions up and running, and a debate would contribute to that, we would consider taking part. That has been our position since the Hain Assembly was set up, and it has not changed one iota. We have seen — and are increasingly seeing — that there is no genuine attempt on the part of others to get the institutions up and running. These debates are playing no serious part in preparing for Government, which is the purpose of this Committee. How can we prepare for Government when one party is saying that it has no inclination to engage and to form the institutions? Our position has not changed. It is clear. I will repeat and repeat what we said earlier: we are happy enough with the report’s contents as a true reflection of proceedings, but we see no point in taking the report any further, and certainly not to the stage of a sham debate in the Assembly. That in no way diminishes the importance of the points that are discussed in the report. We take all of those issues very seriously. Ms Lewsley: Is there any point in our going round in circles on this argument? Are you telling us that, even though we have agreed the content of this report, unless it is ratified in its totality, it cannot move forward? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We have no agreement, at this stage, for the report to go to print. That is where we are stopped at this time. I take some responsibility for cutting off the debate earlier. That is where we are at present. 1.45 pm Lord Morrow: Caitríona Ruane said that the DUP members were trying to rewrite what Dr Paisley said. We most certainly are not. We emphatically agree with everything that Dr Paisley said when he spoke outside Downing Street. Caitríona Ruane and company do not like having the spotlight directed on them. They now want to ensure that no debate takes place, because their argument will not stand up to scrutiny in the light of day. Furthermore, if they are so annoyed about what Dr Paisley said outside Downing Street and if they are so confident about their position, why do they do not come to the Assembly and debate the point, take him on and cross-examine him? The fact remains that Sinn Féin is not confident in its position. It is not even confident about the issues that its members discussed in this room. Sinn Féin does not even want matters that it allegedly holds dear to be implemented — issues such as the Irish language. Sinn Féin now says that they should not be debated. That is quite extraordinary. However, when Sinn Féin deprives every other political party that disagrees with it of debate, I know exactly where it is coming from. Ms Lewsley: May I propose that the report goes to print? Mr McFarland: Sinn Féin has made it crystal clear, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that it is not prepared to agree to the report being printed, to a motion or even to a debate. It seems fairly pointless to continue today, because unless Sinn Féin has a Damascene conversion, we will get nowhere. As we would merely be going round in circles for however much longer, I suggest that we call a halt. Mr McCarthy: What has been said in the last couple of minutes is exactly what frustrates me. What I have heard from Sinn Féin is diabolical, because it denies everyone else the right to a debate. The debate on the economic report that took place on the Floor of the Assembly was important. The economic subgroup met again yesterday, and the leaders of industry who attended to give evidence said how valued and welcome that report was in the attempt to progress the economic future of Northern Ireland. That is important, and the same would apply to this Committee, should we continue. It is a shame that Sinn Féin, or any party, has a veto over progress. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I put to the Committee Patricia’s proposal that the report be printed. Do we have consensus? Members indicated dissent. Mr Nesbitt: On a point of procedure, has such a proposal ever been put to a Committee before? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Yes, it has. Mr Nesbitt: The proposal that a report be published? Ms Lewsley: Is there any procedure that allows for a proposal to defer the matter to the Business Committee? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): No. Ms Lewsley: OK. I just thought that I would ask. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We can take this no further at this time. Ms Lewsley: It is a waste of time. Unfortunately, we have all wasted our time. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): All we can do is adjourn the meeting, on the basis that no further progress can be made. Adjourned at 1.48 pm. |