Committee on the Monday 26 June 2006 Members in attendance for all or part of proceedings: Observing: Mr Jim Wells The Committee met at 12.08 pm. (The Chairman (Mr Molloy) in the Chair.) The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I welcome Committee members to this morning’s meeting. I have some information about apologies and deputies. The Committee Clerk: David McNarry is deputising for Michael McGimpsey; John O’Dowd is here in place of Conor Murphy; John Dallat is deputising for Mark Durkan, and Kieran McCarthy is here in place of Naomi Long. David Ford is at a funeral, but will be here in about an hour. Mr McCarthy: That is correct, Mr Chairman. Mr Molloy: The other issue is about Hansard. Members will have received a copy of Hansard, and there was some discussion about the length of time it took to come back. We are trying to get it back as quickly as possible, and to get a turnaround of 24 hours. If members have corrections, they should contact Hansard directly so that the matter can be dealt with. OK. That covers the Hansard of 21 June. Mr Kennedy: Mr Chairman, are you saying that members with a concern about something that was said or interpreted should deal directly with Hansard within 24 hours of publication? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Yes. If we allowed any longer we would be in recess before the corrected version came through. This morning we will continue with the presentations. Mr Paisley Jnr: Will we deal with the minutes? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We will take the presentations first and then deal with the minutes. Mr Paisley Jnr: But there are inaccuracies in the minutes. Dr Farren: The minutes are on the agenda. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The minutes are item 4 on the agenda. As happened at last week’s meeting, we will go directly into the presentations and then come back to the minutes. Any inaccuracies, or questions on the minutes, will be addressed at that stage. OK? Mr Paisley Jnr: I have another question. At Wednesday’s meeting I raised an issue regarding a slander that was made against me by Sinn Féin representative Martin McGuinness. I note that he was not at the meeting on Wednesday. With regard to those slanderous comments, I asked the Chairman who was present — Mr Wells — if Martin McGuinness would be in a position to withdraw them if he returned to the Committee meeting. As I have said before, there is no evidence to back up the content of those slanderous comments. If there is evidence that a “determined effort” was made to kill him in the last two weeks, and that certain people in this room were part of that effort, then I would like to hear it. If there is no evidence to back up that slander I would like the remarks to be withdrawn. As the Member is here he can take the opportunity to do that now. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Martin, I give you the opportunity to respond. Mr M McGuinness: I was not here on Wednesday, so I do not know what discussion was held on the matter. I have just been given a copy of Hansard, and I would prefer to look at that before I make any comment. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We move on to the SDLP presentation, which will be made by Seán Farren. Dr Farren: The SDLP submitted a fairly slim submission initially, and I will explain and expand on the points that were made in that submission. Therefore Members may want to refer to it as the basic document, and then regard my comments as a gloss or an elaboration on the background and the issues that are raised in it. It will come as no surprise that the SDLP regards the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement as the essential basis of the work of this Committee and of all that has to be done in order to restore its institutions. We would argue that the agreement allowed us to work together — albeit not in perfect harmony — during the brief period of its implementation between December 1999 and October 2002. Sometimes when I listen to commentators, I am forced to reflect that I cannot think that there is a single Administration — be it one party or be it a coalition — that ever works in perfect harmony. I suppose that it can be said that some work in greater harmony than others and some in lesser harmony. However, bearing in mind the background from which we came in order to create the Executive and the institutions, we do a disservice to ourselves when we attempt to suggest that there was absolutely no harmony or positivity in any of the institution’s working relationships in that brief period. I ask myself whether it could have been otherwise, given the nature of the background. We did work together in ways that at least began to demonstrate that together we can tackle an economic, social and cultural agenda in ways beneficial to the electorate. We also began to address similar issues on an all-Ireland basis through the creation of the North/South Ministerial Council and had begun to do likewise — admittedly, to a lesser extent — on an east-west basis through the British-Irish Council. Comments are made to suggest that the North/South Ministerial Council and some of the bodies created from it have been cumbersome and ineffective in their operation. However, if one considers their background and the fact that they were started from almost a greenfield-type situation, then one will see that their achievements have been considerable. 12.15 pm I draw Members’ attention to the work of InterTradeIreland. Its Acumen programme has contributed significantly to the development of marketing expertise. Networking between companies North and South, again under the auspices of InterTradeIreland, has led to increased business, and other programmes have assisted in technology transfer. None of that was happening before InterTradeIreland was established, and I do not think that any of those initiatives could have been expected to be established or grow and achieve what they have achieved were it not for the institutional support of InterTradeIreland. I also draw attention to the work of Tourism Ireland, which came under some severe criticism last week. There has been significant growth in the number of overseas visitors, because Tourism Ireland is able to market the whole of the island in a very effective and productive way, availing of a greater number of offices in international market places than was available to the Northern Ireland Tourist Board (NITB) when it was functioning in this respect on its own. Therefore, we need to see the positives in those institutions and seek to build on them, but if there is a degree of over-bureaucracy associated with them, or if they are inefficient and ineffective, we need to weed that out. The point that I am making is that in the short time that we did operate, significant progress was made with respect to matters in Northern Ireland and in the whole island. We had begun to promote matters on an east-west basis through the auspices of the British-Irish Council. For various reasons — and I do not think that unwillingness was one of them — that was to a lesser extent, but progress was being made there too. Also, matters relating to police reform — the creation of new policing arrangements through the establishment of the PSNI, new recruitment procedures, the Policing Board and the district policing partnerships (DPPs) — showed that progress could be made towards a more acceptable form of policing. In addition, we should bear in mind that some progress was also made on the human rights agenda, the equality agenda and on cultural matters in relation to language and other aspects of our different cultural traditions. I know that people will be quick to criticise and point to gaps — and I can acknowledge the gaps and the fact that some criticism may be due with respect to what was done or not done under the various initiatives — but there is much that was positive. Indeed, in so far as it has been possible since suspension to promote the work related to those issues, it continues to have a number of positive dimensions to it. We acknowledge that the progress made on those and other matters was not even. However, in the SDLP’s view, the failure to sustain the Executive cannot be directly attributed to weaknesses in the institutions established under the agreement, but rather to a failure to honour commitments, which, if they had been honoured at the time, would have helped to build the necessary confidence to create sufficient trust among the parties in the Executive and thereby to sustain the Executive and the other institutions. That is why the first item mentioned in the SDLP’s submission is the need to demonstrate understandings and undertakings that would serve to maximise confidence in the restoration of the institutions and their subsequent stability. We say that because we do not believe and do not accept that new pre-conditions can be introduced at this stage. If it is shown that the failures to honour commitments that resulted in the suspension of the agreement have now been addressed, then there should be no further impediments to restoring our political institutions. These commitments were in respect of the decommissioning of paramilitary arms and the cessation of all forms of paramilitary activity, including paramilitary-directed criminality. Reports from the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning (IICD) and from the Independent Monitoring Commission (IMC) are the key sources to which the SDLP believes we need to turn for guidance on whether such commitments have been honoured. However, they are not the sole sources. For example, the SDLP would take particular account of what the Garda Síochána had to say — in recent years it has frequently been in a position to attribute various incidents and activities to paramilitaries, when it has had the information necessary to do so. As we prepare for devolution it is also essential that we develop confidence that partnership within government will be honoured. I refer back to a discussion that we had with the DUP in particular last week. While I acknowledge that recent developments in some councils have been positive, the experience of SDLP councillors in a number of DUP-dominated councils had been other than positive up until now — and even now the positive steps that we have recorded recently have not been taken in some councils. I am not simply referring to the allocation of office within these councils, but also to the general attitude and the attempted actions — prevented only by reference to the threat of legal action under equality legislation — against organisations associated with the nationalist tradition; in particular, the Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA). We could go back over the history of that, but, in future, we need to seek assurances that, for the good of us all, we will have clear, forthright and determined commitments to work in partnership; in government, if we succeed in restoring the institutions, or in whatever form of authority we find ourselves representing the people, and in councils, in whatever form they will take — although they are not an immediate issue of concern. However, we must reassure one another that we are committed to partnership. I take the point that it is not a one-way street; if we are to have a partnership all sides must make commitments and honour obligations to one another. My comments should not be taken to mean that the SDLP, in the light of its experience of working the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement, does not recognise and accept that other issues — aside from those essential issues that led to suspension and which must be addressed before restoration is achieved — should not also be addressed or that priorities for the restored institutions should not be identified, discussed and, where possible, agreed on. In the course of the review of the operation of the Good Friday Agreement, the SDLP identified and discussed issues with Government and with all the other parties round this table. In one way or another, we engaged with them on review matters so that, if the institutions are restored, they will operate more efficiently, more effectively, will be more accountable and will have a greater sense of collective commitment and responsibility. Matters relating to the pledge of office, the ministerial code, etc all need to be addressed, and there are also issues surrounding the operation of the North/South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council. The SDLP is happy to table details of our proposals as the business of this Committee progresses. However, it is important to appreciate that, certainly from our perspective, we do not regard it as necessary to have all such matters firmly resolved before restoration. Nor do we regard the recommendations contained in the so-called proposals for a comprehensive agreement in December 2004 as acceptable outcomes to the review that was being conducted up until then. I have stressed before, on behalf of the SDLP, that whatever conclusions people thought had been arrived at on review matters, they were not arrived at in an inclusive way. Certainly, the SDLP never agreed to them and has very serious objections to many of the proposals, not least because they include, for example, a recommendation for the automatic exclusion from office of parties that do not assent to the proposed membership of the Executive. There are other proposals relating to the procedures of the North/South Ministerial Council, for example, to which we also take exception. Those have led us to reject the set of proposals as a useful basis for discussion within this Committee or in any respect with regard to the restoration of the institutions. However, we are happy to table our proposals and to review and engage with those of other parties, whenever and wherever that can happen. The next matter, listed in our initial submission, is the question of the devolution of justice and policing, which will present us all with serious challenges in respect of the powers that are to be devolved, the portfolio structures into which they should be devolved and the general manner in which an Executive would discharge responsibility for those powers. It is also a key confidence-building issue and one on which there should be no further prevarication as far as the position of any party is concerned. The SDLP is particularly concerned about the attitude and approach of Sinn Féin. A police service, and there will probably be general agreement on this point, must be accepted as an independent service subject to clear operational criteria and ultimately accountable to the society it serves through its representatives It is critical to have a clear understanding of the parties’ approaches to this whole area, and, therefore, it is important that the issue be addressed in ways that will provide the necessary reassurances and confidence. 12.30 pm Finally, we have referred to issues in a general sense that could be part of a Programme for Government, or, as some put it, priorities for Government. That should not mean a set of issues that necessarily have to be fully debated and agreed as a condition for restoration; but it would be helpful if some progress could be made, especially on such cross-cutting issues as economic regeneration, matters relating to victims, and how we create conditions for a shared reconciled society. We all have a contribution to make, and if we can achieve progress on how those matters should be tackled, it would be helpful and positive in moving the agenda forward to ensure restoration. There is a considerable degree of interest and support for us in tackling economic regeneration. We need to see how we can move forward and tackle that issue. As I said last week, the business community, the trade union community, and the voluntary and community sectors, would be gravely disappointed if we continued to fail to create the mechanism whereby we could begin to get our teeth into this whole question. We must address economic regeneration with a considerable degree of urgency and recognise that there is support for that. However, that support would wane into disillusionment and complete disinterest if we were to fail to take up this responsibility. That is a gloss; as I said, my remarks are intended as an elaboration on the main points in our earlier submission. I am happy to take questions or hear comments. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): If Members are content, we will proceed in a similar way to before: the party that starts off questioning will continue its line of questioning, and we will then move on to the next party. Can I have the first line of questioning? Mr McFarland: In the absence of anyone else wishing to, Chairman, I will start. Can I tease out the issue of extending North/South areas of co-operation? During the first Assembly it was agreed that there would be six cross-border bodies and six areas of further co-operation with a view to expanding those. However, the essential logic behind them was that they would be in areas of mutual benefit and that they would not be brought in simply for political reasons. Therefore there was a logic to them — they were beneficial to both sides of the border and so, logically, they were sensible areas for co-operation. During the talks at the comprehensive agreement stage, there was a sense that the SDLP was bashing on and trying to rapidly expand such bodies into a large number of areas. Some of them looked as though they might have been there for political reasons rather than for logical, common-interest reasons. Will Dr Farren expand on how he sees that whole area of the expansion of cross-border bodies and areas of co-operation developing? Dr Farren: In general, we should not be doctrinaire about the establishment of North/South bodies or whatever other forms of mechanism for co-operation might suggest themselves to us. After all, we fully subscribe to the phrase in the Good Friday Agreement: “where there is a mutual cross-border and all-island benefit”. As long as we can make a clear — one could say, business-type — case that such bodies deserve to be established, they should be established. Certainly, given the period of time in which the bodies have been in operation, and allowing for the fact that they have been on a care-and-maintenance basis during suspension, it would not be inappropriate to conduct a review. If there are bodies that have, as it were, reached the end of their usefulness, they could be replaced. If there are other bodies that seem to be worth establishing, they should be established. It would be true to say that not all the bodies have worked with the same level of efficiency and effectiveness; they have not all made the impact that would make them household names to people North and South. However, most of them have achieved a positive outcome. The Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission is in difficulties because of the east-west nature of the statutes in which it works, and because it could not be made to function within the terms of a North/South body, there is a clear need to replace it. However, that difficulty was realised and acknowledged soon after the commission was established. Therefore, if we can make a justifiable case for something else, the gap to be filled is there. The SDLP is anxious that greater forms of co-operation be created and developed, particularly with respect to research and development. Across the island, there are nine universities, each with limited research capacity. The emphasis on R&D as an essential ingredient to economic regeneration is widely acknowledged. Although our Northern Ireland universities are UK universities — I know the situation with some degree of familiarity from my professional background — they do not have the same close relationship with other universities in Britain as those universities have with each other. That is simply because of the remove at which they are located. Therefore, it makes a great deal of sense for them to pool some of their research expertise, not only with universities in the South, but with universities wherever it is appropriate to do so. There is, however, a particular pertinence about a case for North/South co-operation in that area. We have seen it to some extent with the development of spatial planning through US involvement from Harvard University with the University of Ulster, the University of Galway and the Athlone Institute of Technology. Also, we have seen it through work that Alasdair is familiar with in cancer research. There are other areas in which there is considerable scope. At a function the other evening, I spoke with representatives of Bombardier, and only recently, a conference was held here — the first of its kind — which brought together people conducting research in avionics across the country. People from Bombardier told me how surprised they were at the extent to which there is research in some aspects of avionics in the South — for instance, research work into composites for aircraft construction. They want to exploit that. People hit on those things accidentally. Why not have a much more strategic approach or this kind of co-operation? That would be part of the case that we would make. My answer, in short, is not a doctrinaire approach, but one that is essentially guided by the need to ensure that we mobilise and exploit the capacity of what exists on the island, North and South, to the mutual benefit of people in both parts of the country. Mr McNarry: Seán, you mentioned economic regeneration, which we are all interested in. When asked about this matter, Sinn Féin, interestingly, stated a figure of £10 billion over 10 years as a contribution from both London and Dublin. I wonder whether you have a figure in mind for dealing with economic regeneration in the broadest sense, which would be a contribution from London and Dublin. Do you have a proportion in mind? Would that be an equal contribution from both Governments? Dr Farren: Since one party has said £10 billion, why do I not say £20 billion? I am not interested in a headline-grabbing figure. I think that it is far better and more effective if we make the case for what we need to do, how we would do it and the resources that we need with which to do it. Economic regeneration is not essentially linked to having finance available to us. It is linked to having plans that we can implement with some assurance that they are going to achieve the goals of creating the kinds of employment that we need, creating the kinds of enterprises that will make that employment available in our society and that will enable us to reach targets of achievement that are much greater than we have at present in terms of productivity, general gross national product (GNP) and gross domestic product (GDP). If we are not able to indicate what those plans are likely to be, whatever price tag we put to them is meaningless. Built into that, we must have a clear idea of the kind of investment that we need to make in order to tackle disadvantage in our society, in order to address the infrastructural deficit and in order to create a more modern health and educational estate, together with the facilities that they require. If all that adds up to £10 billion, I will go for £10 billion. If all that adds up to £20 billion, I will go for £20 billion. It is not the price; it is the plan that is essential. I must say that I read with a certain amount of cynicism the sums that are mentioned when I do not see what lies behind those sums. Mr McNarry: The coalition that you talked about working within was enforced, although your party voluntarily entered into that. Do you see the Assembly wedded in perpetuity to an enforced coalition, or would you envisage a time when parties would be able to form a coalition voluntarily and that they would be free to do so? Do you envisage that time soon, or do you see it on the long finger? 12.45 pm Dr Farren: There is a statue at the top end of O’Connell Street — many Members may have passed it — of an Irish patriot, Charles Stewart Parnell. He had close Ulster connections, for those interested in any background to the man. The inscription on the plinth behind the statue begins: “No man” — and I suppose, were he alive today, he would be obliged to say “no woman” as well — “has a right to fix the boundary of the march of a nation.” I quote that to emphasise that the SDLP regards the Good Friday Agreement as it views any constitutional framework or settlement: a living thing that is capable of evolution and development according to circumstances and according to the agreement and consensus that can be reached. Whatever changes may be made to the agreement will be made because those engaged in it have agreed to them. I am not saying that our march will take us in one particular direction or directions. However, if the Good Friday Agreement is not the basis upon which we can grow as we work together and make whatever changes we think necessary, it is not the agreement that I think it is. I hope that the SDLP’s stance shows that we are open-minded about where the future lies. Any movement towards that future must be by consensus; that is the essential requirement of the Good Friday Agreement. Mr McNarry: I accept that, and I find the frankness of your answer refreshing. Would the agreement be worked out between the parties or would you wish the electorate to indicate a clear preference about how it would like parties to enter into a voluntary coalition? Dr Farren: The parties would have to come to some sort of agreement on what form of Administration they would be prepared to accept, since they will have to work it. The agreement gives parties the right not to enter — or to opt out of — arrangements if they find that it would be better for them to adopt that position. You will recall that the SDLP raised the issue about whether it would serve in an Administration under certain imposed procedures, such as those that emerged from the proposals for a comprehensive agreement. We stated our position directly to the two Prime Ministers and subsequently made it known in public. That is one way in which a different composition could be arrived at in forming an Administration. I am not sure how you could clearly interpret the wishes of the electorate if such matters were put before it. The electorate would need clear guidelines on how it should state its preferences, and such guidelines could only come from an inter-party consultation of some form or other, so the matter would end up before the parties anyway. Mr McNarry: Putting the matter before the electorate might be in a manifesto that sought a mandate for such a move. Dr Farren: We are getting very hypothetical about things now. Mr McNarry: Different things emerge from the manifesto about the things you stand for surely. Dr Farren: Oh yes. If you put it into your manifesto, you will get your support for it. If we do not put it into our manifesto there will not be support for it from the people who vote for us. Mr McNarry: You will not know. Dr Farren: No, exactly; but a manifesto consists of a whole lot of recommendations. It has to be a single, clear-cut issue if you are to get any useful guidelines. What do people vote for on a party’s manifesto? Some vote for what a party says on education; others vote for what it says on the constitution; others vote for what it says about something else and so on. We all quote our manifestos, but, to a certain extent, we are not very clear about what the electorate has always supported in those manifestos as opposed to something else. Mr McNarry: My final point is this: I am sure we all welcome the peaceful passing of two recent walks in Belfast, and I am sure we recognise that a lot of credit must go to the organisers and to the protestors for achieving that. Would you say that it would be helpful to the political process should the recent example of the protestors be followed in all cases? Dr Farren: Not being familiar with the situation and not having been there, I am not sure that I want to comment directly on that. If any of my colleagues have any closer knowledge of it, I am sure they will. My approach is that if people are protesting, they should protest peacefully, and if they are marching, marches should be conducted in a peaceful and respectful way. Where supporters are supporting a march, the onus is on them too. We have had too many examples of all three not being conducted in peaceful ways. Mr McNarry: I am just posing the question in the light of the efforts and the achievement that have clearly been made. If it can be done peacefully, then can that not be replicated elsewhere and is it not clear that the manner in which people approach a protest is key to the outcome of a walk? Recognising the old adage that it takes two to tango, nevertheless if a walk is based on the knowledge when starting off that violence against it is unlikely, that is clearly helpful for the process in which we are all engaged here. Dr McDonnell: What particular attribute of the behaviour of the protesters were you referring to? Mr McNarry: The peaceful attribute. Dr McDonnell: In this case there was dialogue even though it was somewhat indirect, and it appears to have largely worked. It did not work to everyone’s absolute satisfaction, but it worked substantially. My view, and the broader view of the SDLP, is that if there was some degree of honest and honourable dialogue, a lot could be achieved, and the difficulty appears to be in obtaining and maintaining that dialogue in an atmosphere of mutual respect. I feel that that could achieve quite a bit in most contentious situations. Mr McNarry: I accept that you from your side of the table call it a march. Dr McDonnell: Yes, or a parade. Terms are used, sometimes not — Mr McNarry: In a sense, that is a bit emotive. As one who goes on a walk, I enjoy the walk. Dr McDonnell: Chairman, I withdraw the term, and to accommodate David’s sensitivities I will refer to it as a parade or a walk. Mr McNarry: I am grateful for that, Chairman. A bit of progress has been made this morning already. Mr M McGuinness: On a point of information, what walkers’ club to which you are aligned are you speaking about? Mr McNarry: The Walker club, as I know it, is the Apprentice Boys. [Laughter.] Mr M McGuinness: I thought they were ramblers or something. [Laughter.] Mr McNarry: With some of the detours they have been asked to take, Mr Chairman, you would think they were ramblers. [Laughter.] Mr M McGuinness: Very good. Dr McDonnell: Chairman, now that we have established that it was a walk and not a march, for the record and for completion, that benign interpretation can often be somersaulted and interpreted with some difficulty by those who feel they are being walked all over. The interpretation is the thing. Mr McNarry: Yes, I think so. Generally I could not for the life of me see how anybody could become so passionately involved in violence over a walk, but I can when the connotation comes up that it is a march or a parade and therefore sounds adversarial to those who cannot come out as spectators. What is interesting about this is that when we come to a certain time of the year, reasons are offered for politics to close down: not because of the walking season, but because of the marching season. Therefore, I would have hoped that from your side of the table, you would encourage those whom you can to try to maintain what we have established over recent weeks in terms of their protest. I know there is an onus of responsibility on people on my side of the table as well. Seán mentioned the tourist industry. We could rid society of the trap that it has fallen into, the notion that the summer season is coming so we have to close down a lot of things. If we can get over that mentality — and I am asking you to share in that — it augurs well not only for the political process we are all involved in, but for all aspects of society. Dr McDonnell: Chairman, I have no difficulty in agreeing broadly with the sentiments expressed. David referred to Sean’s comment on tourism. July is normally the peak of the year from that perspective. It is tragic that, because of contention, controversy and worse around the walking season, in our case July is the slump month of the year. I can reflect on Belfast more than anywhere else: the city almost closes down for the month of July. A lot of economic benefit is sacrificed to the walking and the contention and difficulty that arise from it. The sooner we get solutions and resolutions to the contention, the better. For our part, when the opportunity has arisen we have worked extremely hard to do just that, and we will continue, where we have influence to bring to bear, to try to ensure that the difficulties are resolved and reconciled. Mr Kennedy: In the course of his presentation, Dr Farren said that he would not accept any “new preconditions”, which was, I think, the term he used. What examples would he use to describe those? 1.00 pm Dr Farren: There were many examples of new preconditions in the parties’ presentations last week. The DUP submitted preconditions. The Alliance Party focused its preconditions on what I would broadly describe as review issues such as d’Hondt, collective responsibility and the ministerial code. The SDLP recognises that some of those issues need to be addressed, but they do not need to be signed, sealed and delivered before restoration. Those issues did not cause the collapse of the Executive. The DUP put matters such as parades and equality into the mix. The DUP may have a case about the parades issue that needs to be addressed, but this is not a forum for addressing that issue; it may have a case about the allocation of funds, but this is not a forum for addressing that issue either. Coming closer to issues that need, at least, to be considered, the DUP put the question of fifty-fifty recruitment to the police into a paragraph on policing as if it were, to them, a precondition to be resolved before restoration. We must get real about our tasks, and the SDLP has tried to tease those out in its questioning of other parties. What do the other parties really believe are the essential matters that need to be addressed and resolved? Those issues need to be addressed, if not resolved, and we need to be confident that they will be resolved expeditiously after restoration. Had the institutions been up and running, we would have been in review mode and would have resolved — or not resolved, as the case may be — some of the concerns raised about matters under review. However, those issues would not have stopped the institutions from functioning, because there is a provision for ongoing review. To say that those issues are now preconditions lengthens the agenda in a way that makes restoration less, rather than more, likely. Mr Kennedy: Is the SDLP leaving open the prospect of some changes being made to the workings of the Belfast Agreement, but it is not open to introducing, in Dr Farren’s terms, preconditions to the Belfast Agreement? Dr Farren: The review process has been under way for some time— in fact, for many years. Indeed, some aspects of the review were being conducted, if Mr Kennedy recalls, while the institutions were still functioning. Among those matters was the designation issue — if I may call it that — and the position that the Alliance Party adopted in order to ensure that the institutions could continue to function. Any party is free to suggest proposals on those matters, and I have instanced just a few of them. We can address the questions of collective responsibility, accountability and efficiency, and whatever those terms might mean. However, they are not preconditions in the sense that, without their being resolved, restoration could not be achieved. We could progress those matters until 24 November, if restoration is to be achieved then, and continue to address them if they remain unresolved. Those matters concern the operation of the institutions established under the Good Friday Agreement; they do not concern the achievement of restoration. Mr Kennedy: Likewise, would issues of interest to the SDLP, such as an increase in North/South co-operation and the number of North/South bodies, also fall into that category? Dr Farren: Of course. Mr Kennedy: They are not preconditions either? Dr Farren: Well, they are essentially review matters. The one gap that we would expect to be resolved is the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission situation; we have, in a sense, five and a half institutions, rather than the six institutions of a North/South kind that we had agreed. So there is a gap to be filled. Whether we arrive at agreement in respect of changes to any of those, or whether we arrive at agreement in respect of additional bodies, has to be a matter that we negotiate and agree to together. That is the way it was envisaged in the agreement. I neglected to bring a copy of the agreement with me; we should have one handy so that we can refer precisely to what is in it. It refers to additional bodies being created with the agreement of the Assembly and the Oireachtas in the South. That is the way it is supposed to work. It is the way we accept. We are not going to accept one bit and not others. Mr Kennedy: Yes, but just to be absolutely clear: you are not making a precondition out of your desire to increase the number of bodies? Dr Farren: No, I did not say that. I made myself very clear with respect to what are the issues at the heart of suspension and what are the other issues to be resolved that are, in that sense, only desirable. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): There is a copy of the agreement here if anyone wants to read it. Dr Farren: Thanks very much. Mr Kennedy: Here is one we made earlier. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Several of them. Dr Farren: OK, fine, thanks. Dr McDonnell: Chairman, I think it is worth going back to this issue. Any improvements or additions that the SDLP is seeking are improvements that will be of mutual benefit to the people of the whole island, North and South. Obviously we are particularly interested in benefits for the North. Mr Kennedy: But your main focus is to get the institutions up and running rather than see them delayed as a result of a wrangle over an increased number of bodies. Is that a fair reflection of your view? Dr Farren: If we said anything to make you believe otherwise, then we should not have; but I do not think we did. Mr Kennedy: There is another issue that has been touched on by others. Can you foresee any circumstances wherein the SDLP would enter an Executive as part of a voluntary coalition, not including one or more of the parties represented in this room? Dr Farren: That is not how the inclusive principle in the Good Friday Agreement is to be understood. If parties absent or exclude themselves — withdraw from, or do not make themselves available for nomination to, an Executive — that is entirely a matter for them. But if they are entitled to, and want to exercise their right to so do, then, as the Good Friday Agreement says, they are entitled to whatever the formula allocates to them within the Executive. We are not departing from that. We ask ourselves: why have we got an inclusive proposal within the Good Friday Agreement? Last week several attempts were made to suggest that we are an aberration and that, therefore, we should move closer to what is normal practice in the formation of other coalitions. I would not describe us as an aberration. We are coming out of a long period of conflict, division and political instability. We must shore up and create a sense of common ownership, or ownership all round, of the new institutions — something that we have never had in Northern Ireland’s long history since 1921. We have never had any common sense of ownership of representative public institutions, and we must create that. We must move forward inclusively, otherwise we risk sacrificing that sense of common ownership whereby a firm basis in society can be laid for the operation of these institutions. Exclusion has not worked in the past, and in the immediate aftermath of conflict where we are trying to get this common sense of ownership, it will not work if we try something else at this time. The case has to be understood in those terms. Appealing to the practice in the South or in England, Scotland, Wales or anywhere else only ignores that very clear reality, and it is not part of the game plan for getting us moving forward. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I remind Committee Members to switch off their mobile phones because they interfere with the recording equipment. If the phones are switched on or are close to the microphones they actually interfere with the signal going out of here. Mr Kennedy: So the SDLP’s view is that parties would effectively only exclude themselves; the SDLP will not be excluding anybody. Is that what you are saying? Dr Farren: I am making the case for the inclusive principle contained in the Good Friday Agreement. It is essential at this point that we strive to our utmost to re-establish all the institutions on that same basis. Otherwise I do not believe that our political institutions will have stability, and they will find it difficult — if not impossible — to gain the allegiance of the electorate represented by the main political parties in particular. If that is what we want — and I think it is essential — then any attempt to sidestep it will prove unhelpful, useless and, in the short term, never mind the longer term, unworkable. Dr McCrea: I thank Seán for making the presentation on behalf of the SDLP and leaving himself open to questions. It is appropriate that he has done that, unlike others who appear for cross-examination of other parties but, when it comes to presenting their own case, run away and leave others to do the presentation. Some of the scrutiny of their self-examination would have been essential to have on the record. However, that did not happen that way, but at least Seán made his presentation. I am sure he will not be surprised to know that we have a number of questions for him. Let us go straight to the situation as it is. Seán, do you accept, and does the SDLP accept, that the unionist community has a problem with the Belfast Agreement? Dr Farren: Just as I would accept that any party with a mandate says that it has a problem with something, then I accept that the unionist community has difficulties with the way in which things have proceeded — or not proceeded — since the Good Friday Agreement was adopted and endorsed. If, however, you are suggesting that those difficulties are inherent to the agreement, that would have to be more clearly demonstrated to me than it has been hitherto, because I do not accept that that is the case. However, I do accept that difficulties have arisen out of the implementation or non-implementation or, more accurately, the non-honouring, of commitments made with respect to the agreement. 1.15 pm Dr McCrea: Do you accept that there are many in the unionist community who believe that the Belfast Agreement is fundamentally flawed and, therefore, in their eyes it is not the basis for a stable democracy in Northern Ireland? Dr Farren: I have almost answered that question in what I have just said. It is probably an attractive proposition, when one finds difficulties with the way in which something operates, to say that the thing itself is inherently flawed and that, therefore, we need to throw out the whole apple cart, together with the apples, and start afresh. However, that is not the position that the SDLP adopts towards the agreement. We believe that the agreement is essentially the instrument that we need to address the problems, the crises and the conflict that we have been through. Changes may need to be made to its operation and commitments may need to be honoured, if they have not yet been honoured, to ensure that the institutions created under the Agreement can work. However, I have often made the point that if we were to start again, we would end up very close, if not in an identical position, to where we arrived at on Good Friday in 1998. Dr McCrea: If the people of Northern Ireland were offered the opportunity to vote in a referendum on the Belfast Agreement today, would you be confident that it would gain the support of the unionist community? Dr Farren: As there have been operational difficulties with the agreement and with the commitments made under it, people might be inclined to agree with what they would be told by their representatives: that we should start again. Quite a few people would probably respond positively to that message. Some of those who gave their support to the agreement in 1998 would not give it today, or certainly not with the same degree of enthusiasm. Again, what you are trying to suggest is that we start from scratch, but we do not have time to do that. The two Governments have made it clear that the Good Friday Agreement is the basis upon which we must move forward. I am convinced that it is the basis upon which we must move forward, and we must seek our accommodation within the terms and principles of that agreement, recognising that there have been difficulties with some aspects of its operation. I have been through that argument several times. There are also commitments that should have been honoured but were not honoured in time to sustain the institutions. However, I am certainly not conceding that the Belfast Agreement is not the kind of agreement that we need in order to move forward. Dr McCrea: Irrespective of how anyone could convince the electorate, remember that the basis of our democracy is the ballot box — so test it at the ballot box. Surely the basis of the Belfast Agreement was that it would have the support of a majority of unionists and a majority of nationalists? Seán, if you are not sure that, if put to the test, the agreement would be supported by a majority of unionists, then how can you suggest that they should be forced to establish a government when they do not believe the premise on which it has been built — other than to force them to do it, which is the opposite of democracy. Dr Farren: William, through the Chair, I take it that the purpose of us being here is to try to work through the issues that need to be worked through to ensure the restoration of our institutions. I am confident that if we can do so people will endorse the outcome of that. Putting the Belfast Agreement to the people today to see whether or not they agree with it would be a needless and unhelpful exercise. I am not going to go down the road of engaging in a debate on that because, politically, it is not the road that we should be going down. Why should I go down that road if I do not believe that I should? Dr McCrea: While you may regard it as needless and unhelpful, surely the purpose of our Committee is to scope the issues? Whether you feel that it is needless or unhelpful, do you not accept that a large proportion of the people, and a majority of unionists, do not believe that it would be needless and unhelpful — rather they believe that the foundation of any devolved government should be fundamentally correct? Dr Farren: I take it that we have a responsibility to identify the issues that we all believe need to be addressed to ensure that our institutions can be restored. We must ensure that if we do reach an agreement on how to resolve those issues we can confidently progress and meet whatever test we put to the electorate. That is my answer. The principles and the key institutions and procedures of the Good Friday Agreement provide us with the means of moving forward, subject to addressing the issues and making progress on matters regarding the operation of the institutions. That is our remit, and that is what we should be about. Dr McDonnell: As the SDLP and many others would see it, the Belfast Agreement was endorsed in 1998. It was supported by the two Governments and supported in referendums North and South of this island. We recognise that the DUP have — and had — some difficulty with it. You can second-guess public opinion, or speculate as to what it might be, but the referendums were held in 1998, and nothing we can do changes that. Dr McCrea: So you are saying — Dr McDonnell: Sorry, let me finish. Dr McCrea: Sorry, I did not realise that you had not finished. Dr McDonnell: We can move on from there, but we cannot, with all due respect, move back in time. Our party is keen to move on, and to probe, to listen to and to accommodate, where possible, the views, not just of the wider unionist population, but of the DUP as a political party. However, the SDLP does not believe that those views can be accommodated by attempting to find a reverse mode that takes us back through the last 10 years. This Committee, and our efforts here in general, are about finding a forward pathway and a forward gear that takes us through whatever modifications are required to the function of the agreement in order to accommodate. However, we do not see any way in which we can reverse and rewrite, undo or airbrush history. Dr McCrea: Let me get this right: you are saying that when the UK went into the EU, for example — Dr McDonnell: No, sorry, Chairman. I was not talking about the EU. Dr McCrea: Sorry. I am asking the question, so I will allow you to answer. The tables were turned before, but now — Dr McDonnell: I am answering your question: I was not talking about the European Union. Dr McCrea: Please, just allow me. You are saying that it is impossible, for example, for a Conservative Government to take the United Kingdom out of the EU. Dr McDonnell: Chairman, I thank Dr McCrea for making my point for me, because although many of those involved in politics across the UK may huff and puff about the European Union, I do not believe that, in practical terms, the day will ever dawn when Britain, or British Governments, will be foolish enough to withdraw from the European Union. They realise that the game is to make the best of the situation, to move forward and to attempt to remedy whatever flaws they find in the European Union from within, rather than adopting a dog-in-the-manger position from outside. Because the penalties for that are ridicule and all sorts, and that would make for bad politics. Dr McCrea: Although I accept your great knowledge and your right to think — Dr McDonnell: Chairman, the sarcasm is blinding. Dr McCrea: No. I did not ask you to think. I asked you, could they, in a democracy, decide to come out of the EU if they wanted? Dr McDonnell: Chairman, I am finding it difficult to answer, because when I give an honest answer to the best of my ability, I am bombarded with sarcasm and condescension. They possibly could, but the practicalities of implementing or effecting that would be so far-reaching that, before they went down that road of trying to get out, they and the public would realise the folly, and they would reverse. In our case, quite honestly, if we are pushing that far, the problem with the Belfast Agreement, and any failure that one might accept was associated with it, was a failure to properly and fully implement the agreement, rather than any inherent failure. With all due respect, Chairman, I will always allow unionists to think for themselves, but there were far more benefits within that agreement than the DUP perceived and far more opportunities, if they had worked at them. Therefore, my humble thesis is that the failure that Dr McCrea is trying to imply and to attribute to the Belfast Agreement, or the Good Friday Agreement, was a failure to implement and work it, rather than an inherent failure in the agreement. Dr McCrea: So, what you are saying, Alasdair, is simply this: that the people should not be allowed to vote on it just in case. No, you acknowledge that the unionist community would not support it, so you just deny them the right to vote. Dr McDonnell: Chair, we are extrapolating and nit-picking and taking angles. Dr McCrea is free to interpret: his angle has been that this is only about the unionist people. Fortunately, or unfortunately for him, other people are involved. Some are nationalists and others are neither unionists nor nationalists. Quite frankly, other people must be taken into the equation. People in the south of this island, in the Republic, and people in Britain have an interest here. With all due respect, we cannot set up some sort of political cocoon here that ignores the rest of the world. Democracy allows us to regulate our affairs, but those affairs must be regulated in harmony with our neighbours and those with whom we are associated politically in one way or another. For unionists that means the greater part of Britain; for some of us it means the rest of the island. 1.30 pm Dr McCrea: With the greatest respect, that was a long way of saying that, no, you do not want them tested at the ballot box. You know what the result will be, since there is no confidence in the unionist community. You are clearly stating that you do not want to put it to the electorate. That is all right; that can go on the record. Dr McDonnell: I have never refused to recognise the results of a ballot box, but — Dr McCrea: Would you agree then — Dr McDonnell: Chairman, if I may finish. I agree that the DUP has worked very hard for eight years to wreck the Belfast Agreement — the Good Friday Agreement — the agreement that the rest of us worked hard to put in place, and I agree that it is entitled, if it so wishes, to continue its wrecking expedition. However, it is not entitled to dress that wrecking expedition up as progress or creativity or to dress it in clothes that would allow its expedition to be construed as other than what it is: a wrecking expedition. After having wrecked the agreement for eight years, the challenge for the DUP is how to square the circle and move on. I do not want to deny the ballot box. There were always ballot boxes. We could extrapolate as far back as 1933 when Hitler seized power in Germany, which allowed him to manipulate events to wreck the continent of Europe. We must be realistic and face up to the facts, and the fact is that we are where we are. Perhaps some Members would prefer that we were not starting off here, but we are; we have to work with what we have. Dr McCrea: Therefore partition is a reality and it cannot change. That is what you are saying. That is an interesting — Dr McDonnell: Mr Chairman — Dr McCrea: Sorry, with the greatest respect, I have not finished — Dr McDonnell: Mr McCrea — Dr McCrea: Please, you must not get worked up. As a doctor you should know that it is not good for your heart. Dr McDonnell: I am not getting worked up. We were discussing Europe, among other things, and then someone moved on to partition. I have no difficulty in defining the SDLP’s attitude to partition: we do not like it, we would prefer another system of Government on this island, and we will work for a modification of the present system of Government. The reality is that we are stuck with partition and we work within it whether we like it or not. I ask Mr McCrea to work within the Belfast Agreement as he refers to it — I call it the Good Friday Agreement — until such times as he can modify it. Nothing could be simpler. He gave me the perfect example of what I was trying to say to him for the past five minutes. The SDLP does not like partition and would prefer a different system. However, we will work as constructively and democratically as we are allowed to within that system, and we beg him and the DUP to get on board and work within the agreement until he is able to persuade others to change it. Mr Morrow: Will you accept partition and live with it? Dr McDonnell: The SDLP accepts it for now; we tolerate it. Mr Morrow: What is the “for now” bit? Dr McDonnell: We will tolerate it. There will be opportunities in future for dealing with it. Mr Morrow: Does the SDLP see the Belfast Agreement as a vehicle? Is it a settlement or a process? Dr Farren: I refer to the quotation from Parnell. There is a statue in O’Connell Street in Dublin on which is the quotation: “No man has a right to fix the boundary of the march of a nation.” Things can evolve and change, and we will all bring our hopes and aspirations for the changes that we seek within the institutions that we are trying to get up and running again. If we can do that, we will. If we cannot, we will bring them to whichever other fora are provided to allow us to do so. The DUP has its aspirations, and we have our aspirations. However, that should not stop us working together. Therefore, I am not going to deny that my aspirations include the creation of a united Ireland. It would be dishonest of me to say otherwise. As long as I do not seek to impose my aspiration or to force or coerce anyone, either directly or indirectly, into that situation, what difficulty does that present to the DUP or to anyone else in working with me? I certainly disavow any of those methods, as I have done throughout my three decades in politics. I do not believe that such methods will ever achieve the objective. They are a futile and inherently immoral political approach to adopt. Therefore, on the basis of such an honest expression of my aspirations and my willingness to work within the institutions, such as we can agree them here, I do not think that I pose any difficulty or threat to the DUP working with me or me with its members. That is the basis on which all honest and open politics should proceed. I refer to the question that led to this set of exchanges. I read with interest the DUP’s submission. Apart from a rather fleeting reference — I hope that that is not a deprecating way to describe it — to its belief that the arrangements created under the Belfast Agreement do not provide for a stable Government, all other matters that the DUP referred to, and it should be borne in mind that this is the very last one that is listed, could well be addressed and resolved within the context of the Good Friday Agreement. The first issue is paramilitarism. The SDLP believes that that needs to be resolved; commitments were made that were not honoured in time. Mr Morrow: Has that issue been resolved? You said that it can be — Dr Farren: Let me finish my point, and I will come back to that. I am making a different point. Mr Morrow: The rest of us, no matter what party we are members of, have subjected ourselves to cross-examination — The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Let Seán finish his point. Dr Farren: I did not think that there was any limit on the amount of time that is available to us. Mr Morrow: I know that we are here to 5.00 pm, but, honestly — Dr McDonnell: This is guerrilla warfare. Dr Farren: I am all right, Alasdair. Dr McDonnell: My colleague is entitled to finish his comments. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Let him finish. Dr Farren: I have been as open and honest as I possibly can in my answers, and I will answer every question put to me if I am allowed to complete the answer to Mr McCrea’s earlier question on the nature of the Belfast Agreement. I was simply pointing out that the list of issues in the DUP’s submission begins with paramilitarism. It then lists criminality; decommissioning; policing and criminal justice; parades; equality and human rights issues; a financial package for Northern Ireland; and accountability of institutions. The last issue listed, with only a brief and fleeting reference that is not explained — it does not even say that the DUP rejects the Belfast Agreement — is the stability of the institutions. Now, in light of the DUP’s submission, I believe that — Dr McCrea: Can I give the Committee a point of information? Dr Farren: — the answer that I gave about identifying and resolving the issues that are in the way of restoration reflects what this Committee is about. The path that Mr McCrea was trying to lead me down was extraneous to his party’s submission, unless, of course, his party’s submission was incomplete. Obviously, he, rather than me, would have to take responsibility for that. 1.45 pm Dr McCrea: On a point of information, I accept that Dr Farren was answering the questions as we put them to him. I do not doubt that at all. I am not saying that I was satisfied with his answers, but that is a different issue. Nevertheless, we all said that this was not a comprehensive paper. We made comments when we were presenting our paper — we will be judged on those as well. I have copies of the presentation, and I made matters abundantly clear when I said: “The attempts to resurrect the failed structures of the past, and to fudge once again the crucial issues that bedevil the IRA and Sinn Féin, will not work. It is a prerequisite that the Belfast Agreement needs to be changed. That needs to be done through primary legislation.” In the next paragraph, we went on to say: “The Democratic Unionist Party received an overwhelming mandate on the basis of change to the Belfast Agreement and an absolute commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means by any party wishing to be in Government.” I then expanded on those answers. I gave myself four and a half hours of questions, and I would have been happy to answer any others on that. However, as you know, we have now moved on to questions to the SDLP, not questions from the SDLP. That is why we are dealing with that now. Mr Morrow: To get a clear definition, do you see the Belfast Agreement as a settlement? Dr Farren: I see the Belfast Agreement as the settlement at which we arrived in 1998. As I have said in response to several questions, I regard the Belfast Agreement — the Good Friday Agreement — as a living agreement, in the sense that, as we grow and work together, and learn from the experience of working together, we can agree whatever changes, if any, we believe might be beneficial, within the context of the principles that that agreement set out. Mr Morrow: That is slightly different to what you said earlier. Dr Farren: If I did not make myself clear earlier, I apologise. Mr Morrow: You said that unionists had no right to change it — that the Belfast Agreement was an agreement, and that was that, and that we were the bad boys for seeking change, and making it a failed agreement, and all the rest. We did not have to make it a failed agreement. It was a transparent, failed agreement. Do you accept that if there is to be a way forward in Northern Ireland, any institutions, whether inside or outside the Belfast Agreement, must have the majority support of both communities? Dr Farren: It must have a sufficient degree of support to enable those institutions to become stable, in order to set down roots, and in order for both communities to work together in a spirit of partnership. Those are the essential criteria that we must try to meet. We are here because of failures with respect to commitments that were entered into, and not honoured. Therefore, we must resolve the issues that we agree are impeding the way to restoration. With respect to other matters to do with the operation of the agreement, many need to be addressed and can be addressed. Some of those could well be addressed before restoration; if not, then they could be remitted to the institutions after restoration. That is the clear position of the SDLP. Mr Morrow: If there had to be changes to the North/South bodies, if unionists were not participating in them and not prepared to work them, could those be changed as things trundle along into another disaster like we had last time? Dr Farren: We need to know what it is that people are seeking by way of change. For perhaps far too long, we have been indulging in generalities, and have therefore been unable to give clear meaning as to what we are seeking. Therefore, we get tied up in those generalities in an unhelpful way. When you hear me say that certain matters need not be resolved until after restoration, you may think that I simply want to shove them into the long grass and forget about them. That is not the position that I am adopting; it is certainly not the position that the SDLP is adopting. We want the matters that can be resolved to be resolved. Frankly, however, we do not have time to resolve all the matters concerning the operation of the institutions. We need wider consultations. After all, some matters involve the two Governments, yet they are not represented round this table, even though it would be helpful to know their views. The agreement was, in part, an international agreement. Therefore, if you want to renege on some or all of it, you would have to make the case not just to us but also to others. We need to get on with the business of identifying the issues and how we can resolve the essential ones before restoration; we can have a clear timetable for resolving other issues after restoration if necessary. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Ian Paisley. Mr Paisley Jnr: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Seán, you invoked the memory of Charles Stewart Parnell; he is an interesting character for a member of the SDLP to choose from the pantheon of nationalist leadership. He was, as I am sure you know, implicated in the Phoenix Park murders; he was involved in what was commonly described as “felon setting” in the nineteenth century; and his political career was brought to an abrupt and scandalous end by his affair with Kitty O’Shea. No doubt, we find that he, like all our heroes, had feet of clay. In the onward march of the Irish nation that you describe, would you accept —and I think that you do — the legitimacy of Northern Ireland as a state? The SDLP accepts the legitimacy of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and of the Court Service. However, it is clear from the toing and froing in the Committee last week that Sinn Féin does not accept the legitimacy of the state nor of the police, and it would not recommend the Court Service. Is that a huge obstacle to progress? Dr Farren: I am sure that anyone whom I quoted, whether from British or Irish history or from the history of any other nation, could prove controversial. I could quote St Paul and talk about the persecution that he wreaked on Christians before his conversion on the road to Damascus to show that he, too, had feet of clay. No doubt, anyone who was familiar with Parnell’s biography would know that he had feet of clay — like all of us round this table, were we humble enough to admit it. I quoted him to highlight the point that he made in the quotation, not to trawl through his biography or to invite a commentary on any other aspect of his political career. You have pushed things out of my mind by such questions. The SDLP accepts, as the Good Friday Agreement indicates, the status of Northern Ireland, and it accepts the conditions under which any change to its constitutional status might be effected. That is sufficient answer to the points that you make. It is up to Sinn Féin, or any other party, to answer for how it regards — Mr Paisley Jnr: I accept that it is up to others to answer for their own position. However, do you accept that a party that wants to be a major party in Government but which views the state as illegitimate, does not recommend the police and dismisses the courts as unacceptable is a quantum obstacle for us to address? Nevertheless, we must address it if we are to resolve our difficulties. Dr Farren: I am sure that Sinn Féin will correct me if what I am going to say now is incorrect from its point of view. I accept, acknowledge and recognise that Sinn Féin was a party to the Good Friday Agreement and, therefore, that it accepts the obligations and commitments that it entered into under the agreement. That is all that I have to say on that matter. Mr Paisley Jnr: The SDLP submission referred to the problems of sectarianism and division in our community. Could we digress for a moment to discuss some practical areas? You will know that for the past 33 years the SDLP has been the major controlling faction in Down District Council. Can you tell us why you think that no Democratic Unionist Party councillor has been fit to share power with on that council? I am talking about the top two posts. Dr Farren: This answer is not a cop-out; it is simply stating my ignorance of the details of the operation of power sharing in Down District Council. I am not familiar with the council, but I do know that representatives of the unionist community have been involved at various levels and, I think, even to the highest level in it. Margaret Ritchie answered charges made against her council when she last attended this Committee; she has been a member of the council for over 20 years and was able to answer in more detail than I am. Perhaps you were not here. I think it is unhelpful for us to keep stoking up the history of these matters. The point that I was making was that we needed reassurances for the future, because we cannot rewrite the past. I also said that power-sharing partnerships might not always have operated in the best possible ways, but that people work within the parameters set by the conditions and circumstances in which they find themselves. As members of the SDLP, and knowing the general discussions that had taken place on the issue of partnership down through the years, we attempted to put into effect, in whatever circumstances we found ourselves, what seemed to be the best possible approach to realising partnership. Circumstances varied from council to council. By pointing to one council and comparing it to another, you may well find that we were remiss and that we were not operating to the same principles and procedures in all of the councils. However, circumstances and partnership evolved over the years, not according to any overall strategy but as a matter of principle. Efforts were made to work out that principle in the circumstances in which one found oneself. The SDLP has certainly stood by the notion of partnership right from the reorganisation of local government in 1972. Our record in that regard is one of which we can be very proud. I think that it has been exemplary in many respects, with due regard to the problems that can arise in particular councils. You represent the same constituency that I do, and you know yourself that your colleagues in Ballymoney Borough Council have operated in the past — though not in recent years — a more positive approach towards the involvement of my colleagues, indeed to the point where I have heard some of them say that they would get a better deal out of the DUP than they would out of the UUP. However, that is certainly not the tune they would be humming when it comes to Ballymena Borough Council, where the very reverse is the case. It was only under the influence of a UUP-majority council that an SDLP councillor was nominated to the post of deputy mayor, very much against the opposition of the DUP. The DUP is now the dominant party in that council, and it has almost excluded even the UUP, where possible, from any co-responsibility or sharing of responsibility. My colleague John Dallat reminds me that the DUP abstained when an SDLP councillor was nominated for the post of mayor in Coleraine. We have a lot to point at should we want to score points against one another. However, the main point is the reassurances that can be given with respect to the future, as we cannot rewrite the past. Mr Paisley Jnr: You indicate that this was perhaps an unhelpful discussion. I certainly accept that it is possibly very unhelpful to the SDLP’s position, because although you are talking the talk of partnership, the facts in Down District Council have shown 33 years of exclusion of partnership — especially if partnership should mean the Democratic Unionist Party. In Down District Council there is nothing to describe as exemplary practice as far as the representatives of unionism are concerned. To speak bluntly, Seán, I view your answer as a cop-out in that regard. The areas of great nationalist bias that you mention are Ballymena and Coleraine. If you were to look at press reports, you would probably throw Lisburn and Castlereagh into the equation. Dr Farren: Yes. Mr Paisley Jnr: That appears to be an SDLP trend. However, figures in those areas of great nationalist subjection prove that the nationalist population is growing; the nationalist electorate has increased and is not being subjugated whatsoever. In areas such as Strabane, Newry, Londonderry and Magherafelt, on the other hand, the unionist population is being excluded and driven down — and out — in numbers as an electorate and a community. That cannot be dismissed as simply being a rising sectarian headcount, because the Roman Catholic birth rate has also fallen in all those areas. It may be easy to talk the talk of partnership and to point the finger at Protestant Ballymena or unionist Ballymoney, but on the other side of the equation the picture is not as pretty or as rosy as you suggest. Mr Dallat: Mr Chairman, perhaps Mr Paisley would take some information about power sharing. His submission today is based on a statement made by Gregory Campbell over the weekend. At present in Coleraine Borough Council the SDLP has the chairmanship of one committee. For the past two years, we had no participation in power sharing at all. The only external body that the SDLP was allowed to be involved in was the Northern Ireland Housing Council, and I was removed from that this year and replaced by Dessie Stewart. In 33 years, the SDLP has never had representation on the education and library board, the health boards or any other boards. This is a very poor example of power sharing. The one electoral ward highlighted by the DUP in Coleraine in which the Catholic population has increased is Coleraine Central. The reason for that is that 200 attacks on Catholic families in other parts of the town caused the population to cluster in that particular area. Mr Paisley Jnr: Although that was a point of information and may have been of some succour to the SDLP, the offices that have been given to the SDLP in Coleraine Borough Council significantly outweigh anything that has been given to the Democratic Unionist Party in 33 years in Down District Council. My point is that unionists have given more than nationalists have in areas in which they dominate. 2.00 pm Dr Farren: I was tempted to do what I had cautioned against, which was to revisit the past and take our eyes off the future. Returning to the fundamental point, we need reassurances because, however good or bad we have been at trying to be inclusive and to involve each other’s community through its representatives, we have not yet succeeded in convincing each other that we really mean what we say, however sincere we are in our own convictions. Therefore, the reassurances must essentially be about the future and putting mechanisms in place, in so far as we can, that will ensure that we can convince each other that, by working together, we can create a proper spirit of partnership. The debate has perhaps been helpful in that it has posed a challenge to us — a challenge that is very much underlined by the point that Ian Paisley Jnr made. It cannot be denied that, in certain parts of Northern Ireland, the demographic composition has changed and that some, and perhaps much, of that change has been a result of pressures that we have applied to one another. In my constituency — Ian Paisley Jnr and other Members can relate to this — even where there has been little or no conflict, a concentration of one side has resulted in some villages almost changing their complexion as regards religious affiliation, if I may put it like that. That is particularly so in villages that are mixed in ratios of 60:40 or 70:30, with the 60% and 70% on the increase and the 30% and 40% on the decreased. That has happened on both sides of the community. Twenty years ago, I canvassed certain areas because they were mixed. Now, apart from a quick leaflet drop to show that I was there, I can honestly put my hand on my heart and say that I no longer canvass those areas. The resources at my disposal are not enough to devote the time, and I do not believe in deathbed conversions, in that no one will change from being a supporter of the DUP to a supporter of the SDLP, or Seán Farren in particular, in the last two weeks of an election campaign. We can all see that happening, and that is regrettable. In some areas, the pressures have been direct, where there has been a high level of paramilitary activity, whether that emanates from a loyalist or a republican source. It has also been indirect, where issues around parades or walks — or however we describe them — have made people feel uncomfortable. The display of flags indicates ownership of places. That makes those who do not feel part of that place, or who do not have any allegiance to the flag on display, very uncomfortable, with the result that they leave that area. We all share responsibility for that, and there is no point in one side blaming the other and not accepting responsibility for at least indirectly contributing in some way. That needs to be addressed when we talk about a shared future. Will our future be two separate futures or a shared future? Will there be some element of co-ownership of the institutions so that there can be co-ownership of the places where we live, or will we condemn ourselves to perpetual segregation on an almost South African apartheid basis? Is that the future that we envisage? It is certainly not what I envisage. Whatever the problems are, they must be addressed, and we need to come up with strategies to tackle them. Mr Paisley Jnr: I would agree with everything that you have said about villages changing character. It is probably a pattern that can be seen across Ulster. I can certainly identify with Dunloy and Rasharkin, which have changed considerably, and I am sure that you could identify with other areas. Even in the north end of Ballymena there has been deliberate putting-up of flags by republicans and dissidents trying to paint a particular picture there, and it does not help — you are absolutely right. I am sure that we could point to all sorts of things. On the issue of co-ownership, I am sure that you would agree that for it to work the one thing that we require is trust. The Belfast Agreement, which you have quoted from, indicates that the majority of both sections of the community — the majority of unionists and the majority of nationalists — must agree. It is pretty clear that the majority of the majority community do not agree with the Belfast Agreement anymore. Let us not discuss whether they ever did. I have not heard anything yet from any of the presentations about how you propose to win the support of the majority of the unionist community for a failed agreement that failed to build on trust? Alasdair was very straightforward when he said today that there has been a failure to implement the Belfast Agreement. That failure, with all due respect, was not the fault of the Democratic Unionist Party. Dr McDonnell: It was. Mr Paisley Jnr: The Democratic Unionist Party did not vote for the agreement. It worked against the agreement, and, as you rightly said, has been determined to undermine the agreement. The failure to implement the Belfast Agreement, which I assume you were really pointing at, was by those parties who were signatories to it. First of all, I would like to know if you accept that the failure to implement the Belfast Agreement was the fault of the parties who were its principal signatories. If so, how would you persuade them to identify the obstacles that were not overcome the last time, and how on earth would they address them this time? The same obstacles seem to be there; they are the obstacles that we have identified in our paper. They appear to be the obstacles that other parties were very concerned about over the past eight years. Dr Farren: If we were clear about the issues to be addressed, we could get down to the business of addressing them. However, in general, the DUP submission contains many issues that are not unimportant but are marginal to the agreement itself. Mr Paisley Jnr: But Seán, they were enough to wreck it. Dr Farren: Pardon? Mr Paisley Jnr: They were enough to stop it working. Dr Farren: Issues around parades? Issues around inequality? Mr Paisley Jnr: All of the issues, including the absence of trust, and all of the issues that have been identified as obstacles have been significant enough, collectively, to wreck the implementation and operation of the Belfast Agreement. Dr Farren: We are either into a realistic exercise here, or we are simply going to engage in exchanges that do not seem to get us anywhere fast. If we are going to work towards restoration, we need to have a clear sense of what has to be addressed and whether those issues are essential to full restoration — I keep coming back to this point — or whether they are issues that might not have to be fully addressed before restoration takes place and could be put on a timetable for after restoration. We are not getting close to that, and yet, if we are talking about trust, we need something that we did not have while the institutions were working, which is full confidence that commitments were being honoured. Quite obviously, if we find ourselves in a position where any party around this table, or indeed the two Governments, makes commitments that are essential to the effective restoration of the institutions, they have to be seen to honour them. Only in honouring commitments can one begin to build confidence. It is out of confidence that we have in each other that trust comes. Trust, as most people now recognise it, is not the ingredient that one starts with. If I make a contract with somebody to do a job for me, I make a down payment, perhaps, because the person has signed the contract for the job. However, what confidence do I have that he will do the job until he starts to do it? When the job is complete, he receives the balance of the payment. We are not that different. We are signing a contract with each other, a contract that contains commitments that are based on certain principles that we have agreed are essential to the full implementation of that contract. Therefore we have every right to expect that all parties will honour the commitments immediately — if that is what the agreement says — or within prescribed timetable if that is what is set out. It was the clear failure to do that that led to the breakdown that caused suspension. Mr Paisley Jnr: May I fast-forward to 24 November? Let us imagine that all parties are ready to form an Executive, but on 23 November the SDLP discovers that one of the parties entitled to be in government continues to be engaged in criminal and/or terrorist paramilitary activity. Would the SDLP consider forming an Executive without that one party? Dr Farren: I attempted to answer that question earlier. The problems created by something of that magnitude would throw many issues back into the melting pot, and they would have to be addressed. However, I will not give a definitive answer to the Member’s question in the terms in which he is seeking it. If any party fails to honour commitments, and that failure is attributable to the party in such a way that shows it to be at fault, then, of course, there is a major problem. There was a major problem in 2002 when we failed, after several hesitant starts, to achieve full decommissioning. It was the increasing lack of confidence that progress would ever be made on that issue — which all sides considered to be fundamental — that led to the current suspension. Mr Paisley Jnr: If you have a contract or a deal — irrespective of having trust — and someone breaks the deal in good faith or bad faith, I would assume that there would be a penalty for such an action. The penalty would surely be the scenario that I have outlined to you: if it was discovered on 23 November that one of the parties to the contract was not fully doing what it was supposed to do, it would be excluded, and we could count on your support, if it was required, to ensure that that party was excluded, and we could move on until that party became ready, grown up and mature enough to be part of an Administration. Dr Farren: Ian, I do not think that the issue would be as easily resolved as that, because we are not working for failure; we are working for success. Therefore to start anticipating all possible contingencies only begins to create an expectation that someone might prefer one contingency to another — and perhaps over what we all would regard as the best possible outcome. So let us go forward. Mr Paisley Jnr: I am going on form, Seán; I am not going on semantics. Dr Farren: The circumstances now are that all parties are around the table, and there is the prospect of the two Governments becoming involved. You absented yourself for a considerable time in the negotiations in 1997 leading up to the Good Friday Agreement. You dipped one toe in and you kept another toe out in the operation of the agreement; you used the operation of the institutions to your advantage in a manner that I would describe as dishonest. However, leaving that aside — Mr Paisley Jnr: Thank you. Dr Farren: At the risk of someone jumping in to say why it was not dishonest, that was the attitude and approach that the DUP adopted. We are all round the table here. Let us make the best of this opportunity to get the best solution. If we do not get the best solution, we will have to address the problems that arise from that. It would be foolhardy in any negotiations to start to draw up a list of contingent possibilities, because they would then become the more attractive approach to some. That is certainly not an avenue that the SDLP is going to go down. 2.15 pm Mr Paisley Jnr: I agree that it would be foolhardy, but surely you accept the philosophy of “fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me”. There are things that one learns from history and from past political events where people may have been fooled, conned or taken in big style, as some people once described it. It is important that we get this issue resolved. Democrats and the unionist parties need to know where the SDLP stands on this crucial issue. If one of the parties defaults, do we move on without it, or will it be ultra-cautious again and try to get that party back on board? At what point does the SDLP take the crossing of the Rubicon to be a point of no return? Dr Farren: However attractive the DUP might find the idea of my enunciating another approach, I am not going to do so, no matter how often you ask the question. I am here working with my colleagues, and the party generally, to successfully resolve the issues that are blocking the restoration of the institutions. That is the objective, and we will work hard to reach that point. If we do not succeed, that is when whatever possibilities, if any, are open to the parties here to address. I will not go any further than that. Dr McCrea: A resolution of the issues involves facing the issues, so there is no point in us running away from any of the issues. If they are an impediment, we have to face them and deal with them. That is how one endeavours to at least seek a resolution. I want to ask you a straightforward question, Seán. What do you think brought down the Executive? Dr Farren: As the SDLP sees it, the fundamental failure that brought down the Executive was the failure to honour, within the timeframe laid down by the Good Friday Agreement, the commitment to full decommissioning of all paramilitary weapons, as that section of the Good Friday Agreement required. Several efforts had been made, before and after the establishment of the Executive and other institutions, to make progress on the issue. Progress was insufficient and not likely to be sufficient in the manner in which it was being made at the time. Progress of a considerable kind has been made since, but I am focusing on the issues that led to suspension. There were significant contributing factors, not least the continuing campaign to destabilise the institutions that were conducted by the DUP. Dr McCrea: We knew you would have blamed us somewhere. Mr Morrow: We have been waiting for that. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): No interruptions, please. Dr Farren: In a way it was dishonest. I would have had far more respect for the DUP had it decided from the outset of the Good Friday Agreement, which it had not been party to negotiating, that it was such a terrible agreement that the only honest way to behave was to stay outside the institutions and become an opposition, rather than take ministerial posts where they were half-in and half-out. That would have been an honest way forward, and the way that any party of integrity should have taken. However, your party failed to take that route, and instead worked within the institutions, in all kinds of ways, to destabilise them. How could greater confidence be expected to grow in the unionist community when your party’s approach to participation in the institutions was as dishonest as it was? I regard decommissioning as the fundamental factor, although I am perhaps not in a position to make a judgement as to how possible it was. I have often felt that if some degree of decommissioning had taken place in the immediate aftermath of the referendum in 1998 — on all sides, both loyalist and IRA — decommissioning could quickly have become a less significant issue because people would have seen what it was really intended to be — a sign that the campaigns were over. Everybody accepts and recognises that just as whatever crowd down in Lurgan and elsewhere have been trying to do in recent days, getting weapons is not that difficult if one is determined to get them. However, it would have been a sign of, as the agreement says, a: “commitment to exclusively democratic and peaceful means of resolving differences”. However, the failure to move seems to have been wilful, and some of the things that were said — “not a bullet, not an ounce” was the often-quoted phrase from some spokesperson — contributed to the impression that decommissioning was not going to happen. Of course, even when it was attempted and steps were taken to see if it could happen, they were not enough, and that brought about the inevitable collapse. Obviously, incidents intervened to determine when precisely the collapse would take place, but, unfortunately, it was on the cards much earlier than that. Dr McCrea: I acknowledge your acceptance of the success of our tactics. At least it is encouraging to know that when one has a good tactic, one should look at it carefully. As regards blame, when I asked you what you thought had brought down the agreement, your response was really that it was the DUP, because it was successful in its tactics. I notice a greater flow of the terminology of condemnation when it comes to the DUP rather than Sinn Féin. You are very cautious in your words. When you read Hansard, you will find that you mentioned dishonesty and lack of integrity, but you will notice that Sinn Féin is not mentioned in there — it is all directed towards the DUP. That says more about you, because your party should be the last party to go on about dishonesty and integrity. Was it not your Deputy First Minister who was in position and then out of position; he was like your boy in ‘Dallas’ in the shower and came back into the Deputy First Minister’s post again. Dishonesty and integrity would certainly not be terms that you should think of. May I ask you to reflect on whether any blame was attached to the SDLP for that? You mentioned that when you enter into a contract, you expect people to meet their commitments under that contract. Are there not penalty clauses in a contract too? Seán, was there not a penalty clause for those who did not divvy up to the contract, for those who signed, and were completely committed to, the agreement? They should have been moving the agreement forward, and yet they failed to do so. They did not give up their weapons and all the rest. Was there not a penalty clause that they could be voted out of position? Did the SDLP carry out what it had promised to do should such a thing happen? Did it exercise the penalty clause? Dr Farren: First, there is no clear penalty clause in the procedures of the Assembly or the Executive that the SDLP could have exercised. One thing that the SDLP might acknowledge about the Good Friday Agreement is that there was a clear expectation that commitments on decommissioning would be honoured. However loose the terminology in the section of the agreement that deals with decommissioning, those of us who were there recognised the positions of the different parties. If we are being honest, we have to acknowledge that there was a clear expectation that decommissioning would be delivered sooner rather than later, or at least that the process would start. Let us remember that the first significant steps — and they turned out to be not that significant — were not taken until after the agreement was approved and the institutions established at the end of November 1999. The first engagement between Gen de Chastelain and representatives of the republican movement, in particular, could hardly be described as an engagement, as far as I can recollect. The clear understanding or expectation that decommissioning would happen was, unfortunately, not recognised. I have no hesitation in saying that those who were responsible for that failure stand indicted for the responsibility that it carries, because it ultimately brought down the institutions. Significant attempts were made under various auspices to try to progress the matter. The parties in the Executive accepted steps and initiatives that they hoped would be successful, and time was allowed to test that. They were not successful, and we ran out of time. Perhaps it is an understatement to say that that was regrettable. It was a calamity as far as the SDLP was concerned, because it undermined, for the time being, the hopes, the expectations and some of the progress that we were beginning to make by working together. I do not intend my comments about your dishonesty to be seen as any more critical than my comments about the republican and loyalist movements’ failure on decommissioning. In fact, if you read the newspapers of that time, you will find not only comments in press releases, but opinion pieces that I wrote on behalf of the party clearly expressing the SDLP’s criticism of those who had failed on decommissioning. Although the member may choose to use some of my words to show that I am less critical of some than others, that is certainly not my position. 2.30 pm Dr McCrea: Is the SDLP satisfied that the Provisional IRA has decommissioned all its weapons and ammunition? Dr Farren: The SDLP does not have any sources or resources to verify that one way or the other. It relies on what Gen de Chastelain and his colleagues reported and what the two Governments believe took place when the final act of decommissioning was said to have happened. The SDLP accepts what the decommissioning body said and believes that that body has integrity and no ulterior motive. The decommissioning body is there to report as factually as it possibly can on what transpired. Knowing, and having met, the members of that body over the years, I fully accept their integrity. Matters of concern have arisen since the establishment of the decommissioning body, particularly the highlighting of the degree of paramilitary involvement in criminality. The decommissioning body was not charged to deal that, so the Independent Monitoring Commission (IMC) was established. That, and other sources, became the means or mechanism for ongoing reporting on the levels of paramilitary involvement in criminality and the levels of any ongoing paramilitary activity. We must place some degree of trust and confidence in what the IMC reports. As I said in our presentation, the SDLP has other sources to which it can turn. The views of the Garda Síochána are well placed, and it has no ulterior political motive. It is in a position to indicate what is happening. Where else can we turn to see evidence of ongoing paramilitary activity? Dr McCrea: There is a discrepancy. Dr Farren said that his evidence came from two sources: the decommissioning body, which the two Governments accept, and the gardaí. On 9 June, a gardaí spokesman made a statement about the discovery of 10,000 bullets. He is quoted as confirming that they clearly belonged to the Provisional IRA. At the end of his statement, he said that: “there is a lot of stuff still out there unaccounted for”. Are you satisfied that the IRA has decommissioned all its weapons and ammunition? The decommissioning body stated that the weapons that it saw were decommissioned — although nobody else has proof of it, but let us accept that. However, Dr Farren’s other source is the Garda Síochána, which has clearly stated that there is a lot of stuff still out there unaccounted for. What confidence does that give to any community that all the Provisional IRA’s weapons and ammunition have been decommissioned? How could you suggest that all of that was decommissioned? Dr Farren: I do not have any clear answer to the last part of your question, other than to accept the word of the agencies that were established to make the judgement that you are seeking. I think — and this is a personal comment that many other people could make as well — that having come through a conflict, we can go back over the decades. Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) rifles from 1912 and 1913 could well be discovered in working order in somebody’s thatch somewhere across the length and breadth of the North, and perhaps elsewhere as well. Would that be evidence that that body was still active because it had armed itself at that particular time? Pikes from 1798 have been found, and, indeed, all kinds of weaponry have been found going back over many centuries. Dr McCrea: Perhaps, to assist you, Seán — Dr Farren: Perhaps I am being a bit facetious in order to make a point. I was never involved. I never wanted to be involved and, except for what I read in books, I have absolutely no knowledge of the ways and means of a paramilitary organisation. Therefore, all I can offer is my observation of the situation. Just as they are still digging up bombs from the Second World War in cities in Britain, there may well be pipes stuffed with all kinds of ammunition and weaponry here, which have long since fallen off somebody’s inventory or never were on anyone’s inventory. Really, though, I am not sure — Mr Morrow: Well, then it would be helpful — Dr Farren: I am not sure that — Mr Morrow: I want to fast-forward the discussion from 1798 to — Dr McDonnell: To go back to 1690? Mr Morrow: We did not take the discussion back to that date. I hope that you noted who did. Does the SDLP have any views on who murdered Denis Donaldson? That murder did not happen that long ago. Dr Farren: No. Mr Morrow: You have no views on that at all? Dr McCrea: I wish to stay on the subject of weaponry. The two supposedly independent witnesses — at least one of them, Fr Alex Reid, was very open — acknowledged that no modern weaponry was decommissioned. Those are not weapons from way back. We can forget about weapons from the 1700s; we can forget about the 1800s and even the early 1900s. We should concentrate on recent times because it was suggested that no modern weapons were decommissioned. Therefore, with regard to all the weapons that are known to have been brought in recently — the guns from Florida, and so on — we have been told that none of those were decommissioned. Therefore, how can the SDLP be sure that the IRA has decommissioned all of its weapons and ammunition? Dr Farren: I do not know, and how can you be sure, if I can put the question back to you? However, since you are asking me the questions, I can only answer. The serious point that I was making with my historical allusions was that weapons from any period, if they are still in working order, can be as destructive as the most modern weapons. Perhaps Fr Alex Reid has knowledge about weaponry that I do not have, but I am not in a position to distinguish between modern and not modern weapons. Armies are probably still using weapons that were manufactured in the 1950s and 1960s. Indeed, I have read that the US still has battleships in operation that were commissioned during the Second World War. However, I am referring to the destructive capacity of those weapons, not their modernity or their age. Dr McCrea: I would need to be convinced because I represent those people who would probably be the recipients — as we have been in the past — of the effectiveness of those weapons. Therefore, it is important that we be convinced. Is the SDLP satisfied that the IRA has ended all paramilitary activity? Dr Farren: That is a question on which I can make only a non-definitive comment. In so far as I can judge, it seems that there is no desire — and certainly no appetite — in the communities for a return to violence. Therefore, any intent that might exist, however latent, does not have any support at present. Dr McCrea: Mr McCartney was murdered after the ceasefire. There is much debate and speculation by all parties, not just the unionist parties, concerning Mr McCartney’s murder. Are you clearly stating that the IRA had no part in the McCartney murder? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I would underline that a court case is ongoing. Dr Farren: I am not sure how I can usefully answer that question because it could imply — you would have to tell me whether this is the case — that that was part of a concerted campaign. It does not seem to me to have been part of a concerted campaign. The judicial proceedings will reveal — or not reveal — whether the people involved had some association with a paramilitary organisation. Therefore, until that happens, I am not in a position in this forum to offer any definitive answer to your question. It seems to me that people who were associated with the republican movement had some involvement, in some form or fashion, in the incidents that took place. However, I cannot go over and beyond that. I rely on newspaper reports that are already in the public domain. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I remind members that this is sub judice because a case is ongoing. Members must be careful. Dr McCrea: Is there a case on Mr Donaldson? Mr Morrow: No, there is no case. Dr McCrea: Mr Donaldson — Denis Donaldson, as he would be known in this place — was murdered. Is it acceptable to say that when a person murders someone, all he or she has to say is that it was not carried out with the official sanction of the leadership? Do you accept that kind of cop-out? Dr Farren: Are we talking in general terms? I could only answer that question in general terms, and not with respect to any particular incident. There are all kinds of speculation in the press. I have absolutely no knowledge about who may have been responsible for the murder of Mr Donaldson. Dr McCrea: He is dead, anyhow. Dr Farren: William, I am not going to enter into that issue in this particular context. If we are having a casual conversation outside, we can discuss all kinds of speculation that has appeared in the press on this or any other issue. If you want to formulate the other part of your question more clearly, I will try to answer it, with respect to people being under, or not under, direction from the leadership, but I cannot and will not comment on an individual case. Mr Morrow: One thing is very noticeable in all your answers today. You are afraid to name the elephant in the room, unless that elephant is the DUP. You are quite vociferous, direct and deliberate in naming the DUP as being dishonest, belligerent or not up to the mark. However, when it comes to Sinn Féin/IRA or to what would be termed the nationalist side of the community, you seem very reluctant to give direct answers. Do you have a problem with that, or are you selective in your condemnation? Dr Farren: I have no such problem. Mr Morrow: You seem to have. Dr Farren: The Hansard report will show — Mr Morrow: It will. Dr Farren: — that I have referred directly to Sinn Féin; that I have mentioned the IRA and the UVF and loyalist paramilitaries; and that I have used the general term “paramilitaries” to cover all paramilitaries. If you want to write my script for me — Mr Morrow: No, I do not. Dr Farren: — in your terms, you are welcome to have a go. I will answer the questions in the terms that seem appropriate to me. I have no difficulty whatsoever in pointing out shortcomings when I see them. I have done so. Mr Morrow: You have not done that. Dr Farren: When is enough enough? Mr Morrow: That is my view, and I am entitled to it. Dr Farren: Is the DUP going to put words into my mouth continuously — Mr Morrow: I am not putting words into your mouth. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Gentlemen, you must speak one at a time, otherwise the Hansard reporters will hear nothing. Mr Morrow: We hear nothing but weasel words all the time. 2.45 pm Dr Farren: To describe what I say as “weasel words”, as Mr Morrow does, is very unhelpful to what I regard as the essential nature of the way forward. I am trying not to be confrontational for most of the time; however, when I feel that it is necessary to confront the issues, I will confront them and will name names. Mr Morrow: But not today. Dr Farren: I must say that I deeply resent that. You are trying to suggest that I am not prepared to call a spade a spade where necessary. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Dr Farren has been asked questions, and I must let him answer. Mr Morrow: He is being evasive. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Members may answer questions in the way that they want. Mr Morrow: That is all right; he is allowed to answer in that way. Dr McDonnell: There must be some protection for my colleague, who has been honest, open and frank. Mr Morrow: And transparent. Dr McDonnell: And transparent, as Mr Morrow says, in all that he has said over the past hour or more. It is important that that be recognised. There is no point in badgering one another; it gets us nowhere. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): When a question has been asked, all we can do is expect an answer. However, people may answer the question in whatever way they see fit. Mr Morrow: That is fair enough, but we are allowed to have our view. Dr McCrea: I understand Alasdair’s very protective attitude to his colleague, but I did not hear that same call for protection when some of us were accused of being complicit in murder over the past two weeks. I heard no protests from the SDLP on that; in fact, there was dead silence. I am glad that protection of Committee members is now an issue. Let us go on from there — Dr McDonnell: I must answer that. I was not in the room when those comments were made, but I can assure you that if Dr McCrea is attacked on another occasion, I will jump to his defence. |