Committee on the Preparation for Government
Response to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on Annex A to the Agreement at St Andrews - 31 October 2006
INTRODUCTION
1. The Agreement at St Andrews, which was published by the British and Irish Governments on 13 October 2006, included a number of annexes as follows:
- Annex A – Practical changes to the operation of the Institutions
- Annex B – Human Rights, Equality, Victims and other issues
- Annex C – Financial package for the newly restored Executive
- Annex D – Timetable for implementation of the St Andrews Agreement
- Annex E – Future National Security arrangements in Northern Ireland: Paper by the British Government
2. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Rt Hon Peter Hain MP, wrote to the Speaker, Eileen Bell MLA, on the same day advising that a number of the parties had indicated that they wished to discuss in the Committee on the Preparation for Government the institutional changes proposed in Annex A. The Secretary of State indicated that he was willing to receive any representations from the Committee by 31 October 2006 and directed that, under paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 2006, the Committee should meet on Tuesday 17 October to discuss the changes to the Institutions annex. Further meetings were to be arranged as agreed by the Committee. A copy of the direction from the Secretary of State is at Appendix A. A copy of the relevant annex to the St Andrews Agreement is at Appendix B.
3. The Secretary of State also stated that he was minded to accept that, in the event of votes occurring in the Committee, they would be taken reflecting the respective strengths of the parties in the Assembly and the Government would consider the voting outcome in reaching its conclusions on issues raised. At the meeting on 17 October members noted the comments from the Secretary of State regarding the Committee voting system and agreed that the current voting system of consensus (which is defined as ‘general all party agreement) would be retained but that the minutes of Committee meetings would in future reflect which parties supported or opposed particular proposals.
4. The Committee met on 4 occasions between 17 and 30 October 2006 to consider the changes to the operation of the Institutions in Annex A and other changes to be incorporated in legislation and agree a response to the Secretary of State.
5. At the meeting of the Committee on 30 October, Sinn Féin proposed that a paragraph be inserted to state ‘This response in no way interferes with or negates the rights of individual parties to respond to the St Andrews proposals following conclusion of each respective party’s consultation’. There was not consensus and the proposal fell. Alliance, DUP and Sinn Féin agreed, while SDLP and UUP objected.
CONSIDERATION OF THE CHANGES TO THE OPERATION OF THE INSTITUTIONS SET OUT IN ANNEX A OF THE AGREEMENT AT ST ANDREWS
6. The Committee’s consideration of the changes to the operation of the Institutions set out in Annex A of the Agreement at St Andrews are set out below. The minutes of evidence relating to these discussions can be found on the Committee web page
STRAND 1 ISSUES
A Statutory Ministerial Code, Executive role in preparation for NSMC and BIC meetings and Attendance at NSMC and BIC
Paragraphs 2 and 3
7. The SDLP stated that, while it was not opposed to some elements of the ministerial code being incorporated in statute, it was not in favour of all the issues raised in the Annex being included in legislation. This would increase the potential to have recourse to the law on matters that ought to be resolved politically and thus create a degree of unworkability. The party was not opposed to the requirements set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 being included in a ministerial code but saw no reason to change the status of the code, particularly if there is a requirement in the Pledge of Office to abide by the ministerial code.
8. The key factor for Sinn Féin was that ministerial authority should remain the same as under the Belfast Agreement. As the issues set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Annex A were matters of practice in the previous Executive the proposal to place them on the statute books did not alter the position in relation to ministerial authority. The party was therefore neither arguing in favour of including paragraphs 2 and 3 in legislation nor objecting to their inclusion.
9. The UUP accepted the need for a ministerial code and a robust Pledge of Office but expressed concern if necessary safeguards resulted in gridlock.
10. The Alliance Party was of the view that if the ministerial code was backed up by statute in any sense, it would always be possible to resort to the law and this was the likely reaction in the situation of the current mandatory coalition.
11. The DUP stated that the party was prepared to put the key elements into statute.
12. The Chairperson proposed that those parts of the ministerial code which reflect paragraphs 2 and 3 of Annex A should be incorporated in legislation before 24 November 2006. There was not consensus and the proposal fell. Alliance, DUP and UUP supported the proposal and SDLP objected. Sinn Féin did not support or object.
Paragraph 4
13. The SDLP was of the view that paragraph 4 and in particular paragraph 4(b) could be seen to override the executive authority of Ministers as it gave the First Minister and Deputy First Minister complete discretion and without consultation with the relevant ministers to agree on what should be brought to the Executive. The party saw no requirement to put this in statute and objected to the proposal to do so.
14. Sinn Féin indicated that the “significant or controversial” provision in paragraph 4 was not a stand-alone clause and needed to be matched up with either 4(a) or 4(b). There were also safeguards in the requirement for both the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to agree on any issue to be brought to the Executive.
15. The DUP was generally supportive of paragraph 4.
16. Alliance and UUP did not express any particular views.
17. The Chairperson proposed that those parts of the ministerial code which reflect paragraph 4 of Annex A should be incorporated in legislation before 24 November 2006. There was not consensus and the proposal fell. Alliance and DUP supported the proposal and SDLP and UUP objected. Sinn Féin did not support or object.
Paragraph 5
18. The DUP concern with this issue was that Assembly endorsement of the code would have to be consistent with the provisions as set out in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the St Andrews Agreement.
19. The Chairperson proposed that the Committee agree to paragraph 5 of Annex A. There was consensus and the proposal was agreed.
Paragraphs 16 and 17
20. The DUP was content with the proposals in paragraphs 16 and 17.
21. The SDLP highlighted the requirements of Section 52 in Part V of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. In the party’s view this already covered the proposals which were, therefore, unnecessary.
22. Sinn Féin was also of the view that the areas covered in paragraphs 16 and 17 were already covered in the ministerial code and legislation and did not alter the executive authority of individual Ministers as defined under the Belfast Agreement. As they did not alter what already existed the party did not wish to vote either for or against them.
23. The UUP expressed satisfaction with the current mechanisms/legislation relating to these issues.
24. The Chairperson proposed that those parts of the ministerial code which reflect paragraph 16 of Annex A should be incorporated in legislation before 24 November 2006. There was not consensus and the proposal fell. The DUP supported the proposal and SDLP and UUP objected. Alliance and Sinn Féin did not support or object.
25. The Chairperson proposed that those parts of the ministerial code which reflect paragraph 17 of Annex A should be incorporated in legislation before 24 November 2006. There was not consensus and the proposal fell. The DUP supported the proposal and SDLP and UUP objected. Alliance and Sinn Féin did not support or object.
Paragraph 18
26. The UUP was content that the current system, in which the authority to attend comes from the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, was perfectly adequate.
27. Sinn Féin indicated that the intent of the Belfast Agreement was that the Minister with departmental interest was entitled to attend the meeting. This however did not happen on occasions during the last Assembly due to the actions of the First Minister. Paragraph 18 reaffirmed the intention of the Agreement and removed the possibility of a re-occurrence of what had taken place before.
28. The Alliance Party regretted the implicit sectarianism and that the final sentence of the paragraph assumed that Ministers fell into one designation or another and looked forward to how the appropriate person to “match up” would be interpreted when Alliance Party Ministers were involved.
29. The SDLP was of the view that there should not be provision for a Minister simply to refuse to go and therefore impede the work that would otherwise go ahead. The party believed that there should be a requirement on the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to nominate in the absence, or failure, of a Minister to discharge what would normally be their responsibilities with regard to the NSMC.
30. The Chairperson proposed that those parts of the ministerial code which reflect paragraph 18 of Annex A should be incorporated in legislation. There was not consensus and the proposal fell. Alliance, DUP, SDLP and Sinn Féin supported the proposal and UUP objected.
Assembly referrals for Executive Review - Paragraph 6
31. Sinn Féin stated that it did not support this proposal. A mechanism already existed in the Good Friday Agreement for a petition of concern to be signed by 30 members, whereby a matter is brought before the Assembly for a cross-community vote. The party considered that the proposal in paragraph 6 was intended simply to delay a ministerial decision for up to two weeks.
32. The DUP considered that the proposal was effectively a democratic control where Assembly members are given a role and that the party would hope that the mechanism would be used very occasionally, if at all, but that it would provide a safety net.
33. The UUP advised that the measure would be available on a cross-community basis so that any 30 members could express their concerns about an issue and that the party would not object to it.
34. The SDLP expressed the view that enshrining such matters in law went beyond what was necessary and that difficulties could arise particularly during periods of recess. The party could not see any reason why the proposal needed to be legally underwritten.
35. Alliance advised that it wished to see more collectivity in the Executive than had previously been the case and believed that there were significant advantages in enabling the Assembly to ask the Executive to look at matters on a collective basis. The party considered that the principle was one way of underpinning collectivity, although as the SDLP had pointed out there were problems around timing.
36. The Chairperson proposed that the Northern Ireland Act 1998 should be amended before 24 November 2006 to reflect paragraph 6 of Annex A. There was not consensus and the proposal fell. Alliance (with qualifications) and DUP supported the proposal, SDLP and Sinn Féin objected and UUP abstained.
Reflecting the Pledge of Office, Ministers would be required to act in accordance with any relevant decisions of the Executive and/or Assembly - Paragraph 7
37. The Chairperson proposed that paragraph 7, part 1 ‘that Ministers would be required to act in accordance with any relevant decisions of the Executive’, should be agreed by the Committee. There was consensus and the proposal was agreed.
38. The Chairperson then proposed that paragraph 7, part 2, ‘that Ministers would be required to act in accordance with any relevant decisions of the Assembly’, should be agreed by the Committee. Alliance, DUP, SDLP and Sinn Féin supported the proposal and UUP abstained.
Amendments to the Pledge of Office - Paragraph 8
39. The Chairperson proposed that the Committee agree, that as set out in paragraph 8 of Annex A, the Pledge of Office would require that Ministers would participate fully in the Executive, NSMC/BIC, and would observe the joint nature of the office of First Minister and Deputy First Minister. There was consensus and the proposal was agreed.
40. The Committee then discussed the statement in paragraph 8 that before the Government legislated on the Pledge of Office, it would consider the outcome of further Preparation for Government Committee discussions on policing and the rule of law.
41. The Committee had a detailed discussion about the extent to which the Pledge of Office should include a requirement to uphold the rule of law, policing and the courts.
42. The DUP advised that the re-establishment of the Executive would hinge on this issue, as the rule of law was the one issue on which the Assembly would either stand or fall. The party emphasised that the core of the St Andrews Agreement was that there were ‘twin pillars’ as described by the Secretary of State – the first was the DUP’s acceptance of power sharing and the second was Sinn Féin’s support for policing, the courts and the rule of law. The party considered that the Pledge should be consistent with paragraphs 5 and 6 of the St Andrews Agreement. It drew attention to the requirement set out in paragraph 10, for parties to respond to the Government by 10 November on whether they accepted the Agreement and to the nomination of FM and DFM designate which was due to take place before 26 March 2007.
43. The UUP raised concerns about the timescales and asked if Sinn Féin had a timetable for the consultation process that the party was undertaking.
44. Sinn Féin advised that the timescales were set out in the St Andrews Agreement and according to that timetable the date for devolution and the running of d’Hondt was 26 March 2007. It was anticipated that the Sinn Féin Ard Chomhairle would be in a position to respond, as required, by 10 November and that a decision on policing needed the support of the Ard Fheis. Sinn Féin stated that the decisions of the party in relation to policing could not be pre-empted.
45. The SDLP considered that the Committee should look at what should be incorporated in the Pledge of Office when the Executive was formed and that it should contain a commitment to uphold the rule of law.
46. Alliance suggested that the Committee should consider agreeing some broad principles for the Pledge of Office even if the exact wording could not be agreed, and that paragraph 6 of the Agreement was a good point from which to start such a discussion.
47. The DUP proposed that paragraphs 5 and 6 of the St Andrews Agreement should be used as a template for the Pledge of Office. There was not consensus and the proposal fell. Alliance, DUP and UUP supported the proposal, Sinn Féin objected and SDLP abstained.
48. The SDLP proposed that the Pledge of Office should contain a commitment to uphold the rule of law. There was not consensus and the proposal fell. The SDLP supported the proposal and Sinn Féin abstained. Alliance endorsed it as a statement of principle, the DUP felt that it was not sufficient and the UUP believed it was not comprehensive enough.
Appointment of Ministers in the Executive - Paragraph 9
49. Alliance stated that it had grave concerns about any proposal to remove such elements of joint operation as applied in 1998 and to simply hand it over to party Nominating Officers to make nominations.
50. Sinn Féin advised that its position was that the election process for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister should remain as it was under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. Under the proposal, it appeared that the only person who could ever secure the nomination for First Minister was someone from the largest party in the largest designation. Sinn Féin expressed concern that the proposition did not take account of party size – it took account of designation only.
51. The DUP stated that it did not believe that a mandatory system was best for Northern Ireland but that it appeared to be the only system for which agreement could be obtained at this time. Others could not insist on a mandatory system and then require a voluntary mechanism for the election of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.
52. The DUP also drew attention to the conflict between these proposals, if implemented, and the ‘exclusion mechanisms’ in the 1998 Act which would have to be amended to take account of the potential for gridlock. It would be necessary for nominations to come from the largest parties in each designation that were not disqualified by exclusion.
53. The SDLP informed the Committee that its preference was to retain the provisions in the Good Friday Agreement and enshrined in the legislation that arose from it. It had a few points to raise about the proposals. These were what would happen if either the first or second largest party within the respective designations declined to participate in the Executive? Would the legislation provide for other parties to nominate? In addition, if the First Minister and Deputy First Minister were to be elected without a vote, they were essentially being elected in accordance with d’Hondt and the d’Hondt run should commence with them. The consequences of the proposals required further detailed consideration.
54. The UUP expressed concern about the proposed move away from the endorsement by the Assembly of the newly-formed Executive by virtue of having no vote in the Chamber.
55. Alliance proposed that –
- there should be no change to how the FM/DFM are elected. There was not consensus and the proposal fell. Alliance, SDLP, Sinn Féin and UUP supported the proposal and DUP objected.
- the mechanisms within paragraph 9 should apply for two Assembly terms at most. There was not consensus and the proposal fell. Alliance supported the proposal, DUP, SDLP (who believed that the motion was premature), Sinn Féin and UUP objected.
- the nominations for FM/DFM should be treated as the first and second nominations in the d’Hondt round. There was not consensus and the proposal fell. Alliance and SDLP supported the proposal and DUP, Sinn Féin and UUP objected.
56. The Chairperson proposed that the Northern Ireland Act 1998 should be amended before 24 November 2006 to reflect paragraph 9 of Annex A. There was not consensus and the proposal fell. The DUP supported the proposal and Alliance, SDLP, Sinn Féin and UUP objected.
Functions of Office of First Minister and Deputy First Minister – Paragraph 10
57. The Alliance Party questioned why the paragraph only referred to functions being transferred away from OFMDFM. The Party felt that the proposal was inadequate as it only reflected a small part of the earlier Committee discussions, and agreement, relating to the need to address the issue of relationships between, and the functions of all, the Departments.
58. The DUP highlighted that Section 17(1)(b) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 already provided the First Minister and Deputy First Minister with the power to examine the functions in relation to other Departments and this proposal simply extended that power to cover their own Department. The Party was content with the proposal.
59. Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the UUP were also content with the proposal.
60. The Chairperson proposed that the Committee agree paragraph 10 of Annex A. There was consensus and the proposal was agreed.
Committee of the Centre – Paragraph 11
61. The Chairperson proposed that the Northern Ireland Act 1998 should be amended before 24 November 2006 to reflect paragraph 11 of Annex A. There was consensus and the proposal was agreed.
Standing Institutional Review Committee – Paragraph 12
62. The Alliance Party noted the absence of any reference in this paragraph to the review of the Belfast Agreement provided for in the Agreement itself, in which the two Governments would participate. The party was concerned that the proposal appeared to replace this review.
63. Sinn Féin highlighted that there were 2 review processes under the terms of the Belfast Agreement. One in paragraph 36 of Strand One which did not specify who would be involved in the review of Assembly procedures and the other in paragraph 4 of the Validation, Implementation and Review section which provided for a review of the implementation of the Agreement as a whole by the two Governments and all relevant parties. The Party was of the view that this proposal did not supersede paragraph 4 of the Validation, Implementation and Review section. With regard to the review of Assembly procedures the party was not adverse to this but had not yet come to a conclusion on the mechanism to be deployed.
64. The SDLP was also of the view that the proposal did not supersede paragraph 4 of the Validation, Implementation and Review section of the Belfast Agreement.
65. The DUP was content with the proposal with the addendum that the matters that the Committee on the Preparation for Government had indicated required further discussion, should form the agenda for the first meeting of the Institutional Review Committee.
66. The UUP agreed that the proposal did not take away the necessity, potentially every 4 years, for a full review. The party was of the view that the Irish Government had a role in Strands 2 and 3 but no involvement in Strand 1 matters.
67. The Chairperson proposed that the Northern Ireland Act 1998 should be amended before 24 November 2006 to reflect paragraph 12 of Annex A. There was not consensus and the proposal fell. Alliance, SDLP and UUP supported the proposal, DUP objected with the requirement that an addendum be inserted and Sinn Féin abstained.
68. The DUP proposed that before 24 November 2006, legislation would provide that the Institutional Review Committee should, within the first two terms of the Assembly, consider and decide how to evolve towards a non-mandatory system. There was not consensus and the proposal fell. The Alliance, DUP and UUP supported the proposal. The SDLP had no objection to the committee giving consideration to these issues but stated it was unnecessary to have legislation that they should do so. Sinn Féin objected.
Efficiency Review Panel – Paragraph 13
69. Sinn Féin did not object to the principle of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister agreeing review mechanisms into efficiency or other aspects of Strand One but was of the view that the proposition was not clear and a number of questions/issues needed to be addressed.
70. The DUP believed the proposal to be a sensible one.
71. The UUP was supportive of the proposal provided it did not discriminate against other parties than those of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. It also considered that MLAs should be appointed to the efficiency review panel with all-party agreement on the system of appointments etc.
72. The Alliance Party and the SDLP were both supportive of the proposal in principle but wished to see more detail.
73. The Chairperson proposed that the Committee agree paragraph 13 of Annex A. There was not consensus and the proposal fell. Alliance, DUP, SDLP and UUP supported the proposal (Alliance, SDLP and UUP with qualifications) and Sinn Féin abstained.
Repeal of the Northern Ireland Act 2000 – Paragraph 14
74. While content in principle that the Act should be repealed, the UUP disagreed with this proposal believing that it would make sense to leave the Act in place as a safety net for the first 12 months.
75. Sinn Féin supported the proposal and preferred that the Act was repealed sooner rather than on restoration.
76. The Alliance party and the SDLP also supported the proposal.
77. The DUP stated that from a legal standpoint the repeal of the 2000 Act was a meaningless issue as the Government could introduce a ‘2007’ Act within a day if it so wished. In its view, the days of suspensions and safety nets were over and if the Assembly was to collapse again the reality was that it would take generations to convince anyone that it was worth trying again. What was required was certainty and a process that was secure and would last. It was therefore necessary to get it right this time.
78. The Chairperson proposed that in accordance with paragraph 14, the Northern Ireland Act 2000 should be repealed. There was not consensus and the proposal fell. Alliance, SDLP and Sinn Féin supported the proposal, UUP objected and DUP views are on the record.
Community Designation – Paragraph 15
79. The Alliance Party viewed paragraph 15 as pointless and irrelevant. It believed that there should be a focus on moving away from a system of designation towards a normal, non-discriminatory, non-divisive voting system.
80. Sinn Féin supported the proposal in paragraph 15 and had no difficulty with the aspiration of moving away from a voting system based on designation.
81. The UUP supported paragraph 15 and indicated that it would support, in due course when community confidence was there, a change to the voting system.
82. The DUP supported the proposal in paragraph 15 but was of the view that designation should be declared before an election rather than afterwards. The Party also supported the ending of the designation voting system at the earliest possible opportunity.
83. The Alliance Party proposed that the Committee wishes to see an end to the designation voting system at the earliest possible opportunity. There was not consensus and the proposal fell. Alliance, DUP and Sinn Féin supported the proposal, SDLP abstained and UUP stated ‘in due course’.
84. The Chairperson proposed that the Northern Ireland Act 1998 should be amended before 24 November 2006 to reflect paragraph 15 of Annex A. There was not consensus and the proposal fell. The DUP (with an addendum), SDLP, Sinn Féin and UUP supported the proposal and Alliance abstained.
STRANDS 2 AND 3 ISSUES
Review Group to consider North/South implementation bodies – Paragraph 19
85. Sinn Féin indicated that in 2002 the NSMC was already reviewing the number of implementation bodies and their remit. The proposal was effectively re-stating what had already happened under the existing safeguards and was therefore not necessary. The Party’s understanding was that, under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, there was a requirement for at least 6 implementation bodies and 6 areas of co-operation therefore the number could only be reviewed upwards. It also believed that the experience of some of the bodies would lend itself to a serious argument for enhanced scope.
86. The DUP was not concerned about the issue of a review. It had no objections to co-operation for a practical purpose and on matters that were mutually advantageous but would not encourage any increase in the number of bodies. It also believed that there was an argument for reducing the number of North/South bodies and no legal reason to prevent this.
87. The UUP was content for a review group to be established, noting that any changes to the existing arrangements would require the specific endorsement of the Assembly.
88. The Alliance Party and the SDLP were also content with the proposed review.
89. The Chairperson proposed that the Committee agree paragraph 19 of Annex A. There was consensus and the proposal was agreed.
Assembly/Oireachtas scrutiny of implementation bodies – Paragraph 20
90. The Chairperson proposed that the Committee agree paragraph 20 of Annex A. There was consensus and the proposal was agreed.
North-South Parliamentary Forum – Paragraph 21
91. Sinn Féin supported the proposition that the Executive encourage the Assembly to establish a North/South parliamentary forum and viewed it as an improvement on what was contained in the Belfast Agreement.
92. The DUP was of the view that the proposal should state that the Northern Ireland Executive should be asked to consider whether the Assembly should establish the forum as, until an Executive existed, one could not say that the Executive would do it.
93. The Alliance Party and the SDLP both supported the proposal.
94. The UUP was of the view that, when the Assembly was ready to vote that it needed such a forum, it would do so.
95. The Chairperson proposed that the Committee agree paragraph 21 of Annex A. There was not consensus and the proposal fell. Alliance, SDLP and Sinn Féin supported the proposal and DUP and UUP objected.
Independent Consultative Forum – Paragraph 22
96. Sinn Féin and the SDLP supported the proposal in paragraph 22.
97. The Alliance Party supported the principle of north/south co-operation amongst civic society to parallel the other aspects of north/south co-operation. The party was not however content with the precise wording of the paragraph, believing it implied a civic forum on a north/south basis when there was a need to review the mechanics of the civic forum structures which this proposal did not address.
98. The DUP and the UUP opposed the proposal.
99. The Chairperson proposed that the Committee agree paragraph 22 of Annex A. There was not consensus and the proposal fell. The SDLP and Sinn Féin supported the proposal, Alliance supported the principle but not the wording, and DUP and UUP objected.
Secretariat of British-Irish Council – Paragraph 23
100. The Chairperson proposed that the Committee agree paragraph 23 of Annex A. There was not consensus and the proposal fell. Alliance, DUP, SDLP and UUP supported the proposal and Sinn Féin abstained.
East-West Inter-parliamentary Framework – Paragraph 24
101. The UUP stated that during the last Assembly it had asked the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to open negotiations with the Government to see whether the BIIPB, which took its genesis from the Anglo-Irish Agreement could move into a format in which all the different bodies were involved. This is what was described in paragraph 24 and would replace the BIIPB. The relevant elected institutions referred to would include Scotland, Wales, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.
102. The SDLP noted that the BIIPB had gradually grown to embrace people from these bodies, although it was not sure how formally, and saw no reason why, in the fullness of time, it should not be able formally to embrace representation from appropriate legislatures and assemblies on these islands.
103. The Chairperson proposed that the Committee agree paragraph 24 of Annex A. There was not consensus and the proposal fell. Alliance, DUP, SDLP and UUP supported the proposal and Sinn Féin abstained.
OTHER INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES CONSIDERED BY THE COMMITTEE THAT ARE NOT IN ANNEX A OF THE ST ANDREWS AGREEMENT
Executive power to call for persons and papers
104. The SDLP proposed that the Executive, in principle, should have the powers to call for papers and persons. There was consensus and the proposal was agreed.
Sanctions
105. The DUP raised the issue of the need for a mechanism that would enable the Assembly to continue if a breach of commitment by any party occurred after powers had been devolved. The current system included a cross-community vote in the Assembly to exclude people from the Executive under circumstances set out in the 1998 Act which had not worked in the past. There was also the mechanism for the IMC to make recommendations that could include the suspension of, or the levy of fines against, parties. Such recommendations would come before the Assembly and if approved, the Assembly could take the necessary action to implement. If it did not, the Secretary of State had the power to do so however many people believed that the Secretary of State did not have the political will to make such decisions. Possible options for a mechanism included removing from Government the element of choice in the acceptance of an IMC report or putting in place a quasi-judicial process.
106. Sinn Féin was not in favour of current or additional exclusion mechanisms. It was of the view that if a party decides that it no longer wants to serve in Government with another party, it has the option of walking out. If the Government can survive with its absence, they can continue or, if a party’s refusal to continue in Government caused the Assembly to crash, there would be an election and the people could decide who was responsible for causing the difficulties that forced an election. If politicians decide that they can no longer remain in Government, they go back to the electorate to seek an endorsement of that view.
107. The SDLP recognised that there was an issue to be addressed. The party was, however, unsure what other forms of recourse were open that would effectively address the issue, apart from the political process subjecting itself to huge intrusion from the legal system which was unhelpful. It believed that in such circumstances there must be recourse back to the people by way of an election.
108. The Alliance Party stated that a voluntary coalition would solve the problem as parties would have the option of withdrawing from Government to either form an alternative Executive or deal with the problem in the way in which it would be addressed in normal democracies. In the current circumstances of a mandatory coalition the party agreed that there must be a mechanism that could ensure the continuance of the Executive without necessarily including all the parties that were originally members.
109. The UUP agreed with the general concept of having safeguards. The party noted that mechanisms had not worked in the past and the IMC system had not yet been tested. While the Party agreed there should be improved safeguards, there were no proposals for what those should be and until they could see what they are, it was hard to judge whether the new ones would be better or worse than existing ones.
110. The DUP proposed that there should be a mechanism to allow devolution to continue if one party defaults on its commitments. There was not consensus and the proposal fell. Alliance, DUP and UUP supported the proposal and SDLP and Sinn Féin objected.
Use of Language
111. Sinn Féin pointed out that gender equality is a duty under s 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Party proposed that the Committee use “he/she” in relation to paras 6 and 9 of Annex A. There was not consensus and the proposal fell. Alliance, SDLP and Sinn Féin supported the proposal, UUP did not support or object and DUP held that the St Andrews Agreement was published by the two governments and it is not for the parties to change.
