COMMITTEE ON THE
PREPARATION FOR GOVERNMENT

Friday 1 September 2006

Members in attendance for all or part of proceedings:
The Chairman, Mr Jim Wells
Mr Alex Attwood
Dr Esmond Birnie
Mr Michael Ferguson
Ms Patricia Lewsley
Mrs Naomi Long
Mr Kieran McCarthy
Mr Nelson McCausland
Mr Alan McFarland
Mr Michael McGimpsey
Mr Philip McGuigan
Mr Alban Maginness
Lord Morrow
Mr Dermot Nesbitt
Mr Edwin Poots

The Committee met at 10.03 am.

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

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Welcome to the twenty-seventh meeting of the Committee. All parties are represented, so I will announce the arrangements. As usual, there will be a break at 12.20 pm. Lunch will be brought in and we will break for 15 minutes. I encourage members to bring their lunch back to the table as we continue the meeting. Feeling a wee bit like a voice in the wilderness, I ask everyone to switch off their mobile phones — I am confident that somebody will fail to do it.

We will go through the various delegations.

Mr Poots: This morning, Mr McCausland will have to be Ian Paisley Jnr. I am not doing that two weeks in a row; I will be Dr McCrea.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is there a third DUP representative?

Mr Poots: Lord Morrow will be here in due course.

Mr McFarland: Mr Nesbitt is Mr Kennedy for today, Mr McGimpsey is Mr McNarry, and I am myself.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mrs Long?

Mrs Long: Mr McCarthy will be here for Mr Ford.

Ms Lewsley: I am here for Mr Durkan; Mr Attwood is here on behalf of Dr Farren; and Mr Maginness will be here at about 11.00 am for Dr McDonnell.

Mr Ferguson: Mr McGuigan and I are representing Mr Murphy and Ms Gildernew. We have not worked out who is who.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Will there be a third representative?

Mr Ferguson: No, not today.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): I remind members that the quorum is seven. Please do the maths before you leave the table.

Does anyone have any comments on the minutes of the meeting of 25 August? I spotted one mistake, and I am sure you all did as well: “Corey” should be spelt “Cory”. The spelling in the minutes was taken from a website that spelt it wrong.

Ms Lewsley: I note in the minutes that the proposer is identified if the proposal does not find consensus, but when a proposal is agreed, there is no mention of either the proposer or the seconder.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is a pity that we are raising this issue at the twenty-seventh meeting of the Committee.

Ms Lewsley: I had not noticed it before.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is an interesting point. That is the way it has always been done. What do members think about that system? I do not think that we can go back now and amend 27 sets of minutes. Hansard will record who suggested the proposal, which is not always the proposer, but at least you get a hint as to who brought it up.

Ms Lewsley: I just wondered why there is a difference.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): We could change it from now on. What do members think? Can we have our first consensus of the morning?

Mr Poots: It has obviously been proposed.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): It has been proposed by Ms Lewsley.

Mr McFarland: Chairman, can you just refresh us?

Ms Lewsley: In the minutes, where there has been agreement on a proposal, the proposer is not mentioned. However, if a proposal falls, the person who proposed it is mentioned. On the last page of the minutes, Alban and Naomi are mentioned because they made proposals on which there was no consensus, but for previous proposals on which there was agreement, the proposer is not mentioned.

Mr McFarland: In previous minutes the proposer was mentioned, regardless of whether the proposal stood or fell. Were these the only two proposals on the day? Did we have others that were proposed and agreed? In previous minutes, a pattern was followed.

Mr Poots: When I proposed that all paramilitaries disband, the minutes did not say who the proposer was.

Ms Lewsley: That was agreed.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): The minutes simply say, “It was agreed”. In the interests of consistency, from now on we can agree that the names of the proposers of agreed proposals be recorded in future minutes.

Members indicated assent.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Let us hope that we trigger that consensus on many occasions. Is everyone happy with the minutes?

Members indicated assent.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): We move on to the discussion on culture and confidence-building measures. The protocol is that we ask each party to speak for up to five minutes. There may be some overlap here to combine the issues. There is a sufficient distinction between confidence building and culture to allow them to be discussed as separate items. There is some overlap but not enough to take them as a single item. I hope that members have come prepared on that basis. As usual, we start with the Alliance Party, followed by the DUP, and so forth.

Mrs Long: As we said last week, the Alliance Party is unclear as to why confidence building and culture are being raised under the subject of preparation for Government. We do not see where community confidence fits in, other than with the political structures. However, we have given it some consideration and, in this specific context, the major confidence issues in the community are: first, the threat of violence and intimidation; and secondly, the willingness of politicians to work together under the structures that have been outlined and agreed to make politics in Northern Ireland successful. We want to focus our presentation on those two issues.

The ending of all paramilitary activity is the most significant contribution that could be made to raising public confidence. Last week’s discussions and consensus indicated that that would be agreed as an important step forward. The community must be confident that there will be no threats, violence or intimidation. Individuals, as well as communities, must have that confidence. That is a key measure that the Committee needs to be clear about in order to move this process forward.

After our discussions last week, the DUP represent­atives on the Committee stated that they would not go into Government with “them” — Sinn Féin. That statement raised significant concerns in the Alliance Party about the seriousness of this entire process and the seriousness of the DUP. I understand that the term used on previous occasions was that “the conditions were not right”, but last week, I believe, the DUP categorically stated that it will not go into Government with Sinn Féin. If the community is to have confidence that the Committee’s work is of any value, if it is to believe that we are trying to move forward, and if elected representatives are to support communities by trying to make progress at the micro-level, it is important that people are prepared to commit to the process of building confidence openly and honestly.

To make progress on those two issues in preparation for Government would be the most significant contribution to building community confidence.

Mr McCausland: First, the DUP sees confidence building and cultural issues as scoping exercises. The function of the Committee is to scope and map out what needs to be done on those matters. Secondly, the DUP also believes that many of those issues are central to the long-term future of Northern Ireland because they have a key role to play in building community cohesion. Thirdly, those issues are complex, and it would not be possible to deal with them in detail over two sessions in one day; all that we can do is scope them out.

While accepting those points and reiterating what has already been said about the vagueness of the term “confidence building”, nevertheless, for several reasons, confidence-building measures must be included in any political settlement. Unionists believe that the confidence that has been worn down by the operation of the Belfast Agreement needs to be rebuilt. There is also a need to ensure that the unionist community feels that it is treated as equally and equitably by Government and the political process as nationalist communities have been. If we are to see two stable communities dealing with each other as equals, co-existing and working together, the process of confidence building is necessary.

Many of the issues that relate to confidence in the unionist community have been dealt with during other sittings of the Committee. Issues that are connected to criminality, paramilitarism, and so on, have already been dealt with, and I do not wish to go over those again today.

However, we can discuss mechanisms that are needed to provide equality in areas in which the nationalist community has seen better treatment. We can also discuss areas that can help in the process of ensuring equal treatment. For example, some isolated unionist communities along the border have suffered greatly not only throughout the troubles but, in some cases, they have been subjected to ethnic cleansing. Those communities now require support to rebuild and develop their infrastructure. We believe that special consideration and funding streams should be brought forward into those areas in the same way that they were brought into nationalist areas in the past. Those unionist communities face particular problems at this time.

10.15 am

Work is needed in the education sector to eliminate the chill factor for students from a unionist background so that they feel comfortable and confident at Northern Ireland’s universities.

British passports should be available to those born in the Republic of Ireland after 1941. Currently, they are available only to those who apply for British citizenship, whereas Irish passports are available automatically, at no extra cost, to those in Northern Ireland who view themselves as Irish.

The voluntary sector will have a significant role in community planning and other issues in the future. There is a need for a major Government review of that sector. The figures, which I shall table, show a huge imbalance in the workforces in all the main voluntary sector organisations in Northern Ireland — for example, the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA), the Community Foundation for Northern Ireland, the Educational Guidance Service for Adults (EGSA), the Rural Community Network and Co-operation Ireland. The remits of those organisations cover all of Northern Ireland, and they should reflect the wider community that they serve. That is not the case.

What have those organisations done about that? Has the issue been identified? I do not believe that it is a case of discrimination in their employment practices. Perhaps it is simply a measure of the fact that there is a greater infrastructure in the community sector in nationalist areas, and this is a simple and effective — if crude — way of demonstrating clearly and irrefutably that imbalance. That matter must be addressed, and the DUP has submitted papers on the issue to the Government. I am happy to table that paper today.

Young people deserve special support. In several areas of Northern Ireland, there is a weakness in the resources allocated to unionist communities for youth provision. I can table figures to demonstrate that and to show that there is a need. It is not simply a matter of resources; it concerns the extent, nature and quality of work, as well as training for youth workers. Quite often, in the unionist community, that training is not viewed in the same way as it is in the nationalist community. There are two sectors of youth work, one statutory and the other voluntary, and the differences between them result in a lower level of provision in unionist areas.

The issue of parading has, to some extent, been dealt with already. It goes to the very heart of the unionist community, where the Orange Order is a core element, whether people welcome it or not. Unionist rights in that regard are particularly important.

Those are some of the areas that the DUP wants to examine today. My five minutes are up, so I will draw to a close.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Thank you, Mr McCausland. I am glad to say that the five-minute issue has never been a problem in this Committee. You suggested that you had papers to distribute. Are members content that that be organised this morning?

I see no opposition to that. We encourage parties to make their documents available. Perhaps staff could distribute the documents, and members will have a chance to ask questions later.

Mr Ferguson: Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Ar dtús, ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá i mo theanga féin.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am sorry, Mr Ferguson, we have a problem. We have no facility for translation.

Mr Ferguson: Ná bac leis. I will do that anyway.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am sorry to be difficult. Is the Committee happy enough that Mr Ferguson translates what he is saying into English?

Mr McGimpsey: We all speak English. Irish, for Mr Ferguson — as for most people — is a second language. We are here to do business, and I should have thought that in the interests of efficiency, he should be able to speak to us in English.

Mr Nesbitt: I support that, Chairman. The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages refers to the question of “need”; there is no need to speak Irish here this morning, since we all speak English.

Mr McCausland: Language is about communication, and in this case communication is much more suited to English.

Mr McCarthy: As long as it is a short introductory piece rather than a long gospel, we can thole it.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Ferguson, is this to be an introductory paragraph in Irish or an entire presentation in Irish followed by an entire translation?

Mr Ferguson: It is an introductory paragraph, but it is introductory comments off the top of my head. I could do the whole presentation in Irish and then in English if I chose. However, the objection to the Irish language goes to the core of the issue.

Chairman, you said that the five-minute maximum has never been an issue in the Committee. I do not intend to go over the five minutes in either English or Irish.

Mrs Long: The quickest way forward will be to proceed.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): In plenary sittings, the Speaker would normally rule that it be a short intro­ductory paragraph, subsequently translated. Hansard can deal with that, but the Committee does not have simultaneous translation facilities for members.

Mr Ferguson: Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mar a bhí mé ag rá, ba mhaith liom a bheith ábalta labhairt i mo theanga féin, mar sílim go bhfuil sin riachtanach ó thaobh cultúir agus teanga de. Le linn na mblianta, fuair daoine bás, bualadh iad agus cuireadh i bpríosún iad ar son na teanga, agus dar le Sinn Féin go bhfuil sé riachtanach go bhfuil an ceart ag daoine Gaeilge a labhairt agus go bhfuil sin riachtanach do theanga agus do chultúr an oileáin seo agus do rialtas sa tír seo. Tá áthas an domhain orm labhairt i nGaeilge anois agus labhairt i mBéarla ar ball.

I have merely made a couple of opening remarks in Irish. Irish is a living language across this island. It is not a minority language; it is the living language of the people of the island. Throughout the years, people have been killed, imprisoned and attacked because of the language. If we want to recognise identity and culture, it is important that the status of the Irish language be recognised as being central to our identity. We do not want to impose it on anyone, but we would like an acknowledgement of its importance.

As for the broader issues, Sinn Féin believes that there has been useful discussion and debate —

Mr McFarland: Chairman, the tradition in the Assembly has been that there is a right to speak in Irish, but that immediately afterwards, the member should repeat the same speech in English so that we can all understand. Can Mr Ferguson confirm that that is what is now happening?

Mr Ferguson: Yes. I said that I would do that.

Mr McFarland: Thank you. I was just confirming that you had translated verbatim from Irish into English.

Mr Ferguson: You are welcome, Alan.

Sinn Féin believes that there has been useful discussion and debate among the parties in these meetings on rights, equality and safeguards within the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. In addressing the sections on confidence building and culture, the discussions over the past few weeks should emphasise to all of us the need for a fresh start. Political grand­standing continues to damage the pace of progress that could be achieved and to which people of every community are entitled if their rights are to be upheld. The single most compelling contribution to confidence building challenges us all: to ensure that the political institutions are restored without any further delay. That is the surest guarantee we have of being able to tackle the many issues that affect daily life regardless of our community or religious affiliation.

There is a need to adhere to the principles of full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights. There must be freedom from discrimination and parity of esteem for all citizens. We come from a past in which Irish Catholics were not second-class citizens, but non-citizens. That status meant that any public display of culture — a Gaelic Athletic Association top, a religious medal, even an Irish name — risked a violent response. In our new, rights-based society, cultural diversity must be respected and difference celebrated. The challenge for us all will to be ensure that traditionally marginalised groups, such as Travellers, and new citizens, whether refugees or immigrants, are included in that endeavour.

Irish is a living language across the island, and speakers must have the same rights as those available to speakers of Welsh and Scots Gaelic. To underpin these cultural rights, we require an Irish language Act, with language rights incorporated into a bill of rights and overseen by an Irish language commissioner.

Sinn Féin wants the British Government to ratify the additional clauses of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages that are related to the promotion of language in public life, as well as a requirement for British Government Departments to communicate through the medium of Irish when requested, including the availability of Government publications in Irish. The British Government could implement such basic rights and entitlements now, because they are rights and entitlements, as is an end to discrimination. That needs to be done within the terms of the Good Friday Agreement.

A Chathaoirligh, tá mé críochnaithe anois. Sin a bhfuil agamsa le rá ag an nóiméad seo.

Those are my opening remarks in relation to both matters.

Mr McCausland: On a point of order, Mr Chairman. I thought that we were dealing confidence building first, followed by culture. Our discussion on cultural matters is still to come.

Mr Ferguson: I am happy to listen. In my opening remarks, I said that I would cover the generalities of both topics.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have previously conducted business in this way. Do you want to come back on the cultural issue?

Mr Ferguson: No, I am happy enough. I am sure that you will let me pick up on the discussion if I need to.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): We did agree to discuss the two issues separately, but there is will be some drifting in and out of the territory.

Ms Lewsley, will your contribution be in Irish or English?

Ms Lewsley: My contribution will be in English, and I forgive you, Mr Chairman, for not going around the table in alphabetical order.

Mr McFarland: Sinn Féin has always come before the SDLP.

Ms Lewsley: Alphabetically, “SDLP” comes before “SF”.

Mr McFarland: But “Sinn” comes before “Social”.

Mr Poots: In the phone book, initialisms usually come first.

A Member: It may be different in Irish. [Laughter.]

Mr McFarland: Or the Ulster Democratic Unionist Party. [Laughter.]

Ms Lewsley: I want to ask the parties how they define “confidence building”. Eight years on from the Good Friday Agreement, we are not where we should be. In the past, we have seen how some parties have been involved in side deals and sweeteners, which undermines confidence. We have seen how one party has been given a side deal or a sweetener, and subsequently, another party has had to be given one. A precedent was set, and now the whole process of side deals has got out of control.

At the time of the comprehensive agreement, on 9 December 2004, Peter Robinson announced that the agreement was supplemented by over 100 letters and understandings from the British Government. These were never published, and when the SDLP asked for details of the 100 letters and understandings under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the British Government said they could not give us any information on them because it would damage relations with the Irish Government. Despite all that, on 24 December 2004, Gerry Adams welcomed the comprehensive agreement and said that it was a remarkable achievement. Like many other parties, we want to know what the 100 deals and secret understandings were, and whether Sinn Féin knows what they were, considering that it welcomed the document.

With regard to the wider political process and confidence building among parties, it must be asked how parties can go into negotiation with other parties that have cut side deals for themselves with the British Government somewhere else.

The best way to build confidence is to get the institutions up and working. People at community level are fed up because we are not doing all the work that we were elected to do. That in itself creates a lack of confidence with the public about the political process.

I agree about the need to build community confidence. Naomi spoke about the need for communities to be free from paramilitary violence and intimidation. I agree with Nelson that there are gaps in support and funding for communities across Northern Ireland, which is why we have discussed equality on the objective basis of need. We want to ensure that those who need help, whether in education or at a community level, receive it equitably.

I propose that there be full restoration of the Assembly and the institutions; that Sinn Féin sign up to policing and the rule of law; and that the DUP work the institutions and the agreement without delay.

10.30 am

The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is a strong proposal, to put it mildly, in the middle of a discussion on confidence building. Is that a formal proposal?

Ms Lewsley: Yes.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): There might be some comment on that.

Mr McGimpsey: From the unionist perspective, the building of confidence in the political process is a key issue. There have been three attempts at devolution, and each attempt has failed because republicans refused to do what it was clearly understood that they would do in accordance with the terms and principles of the Belfast Agreement. Unionists must be confident that the local political process will deal with the issues.

Unionists have the safety net of direct rule by British Ministers, which, from a unionist point of view, is not the worst-case scenario, a case of a bird in the hand being worth two in the bush. Will unionists take another chance, given that direct rule — with some notable exceptions — is reasonably benign? Will they risk further upheaval and uncertainty, given that they do not know what will emerge from the process, or will they stick with what they have now? If devolution is restored and the Assembly and Executive are reinstated, unionists will need to be convinced that the institutions have legs and will last for a reasonable, if not indefinite, time.

In working-class unionist areas — commonly described as loyalist areas —poverty is a major issue. The Belfast Agreement has not done much for those areas. In some parts of inner-city Belfast, and in areas outside the city, loyalist, unionist working-class areas have had no appreciable gains from the process, apart from the fact that the killings have ended. Those areas see the economic benefits flowing to other parts of Northern Ireland and little flowing their way. That is a key issue.

The perception in those areas is that the people living there experience institutionalised discrimination. If we have to, we can cite examples where people believe that they have been deliberately short-changed. Poverty in those unionist working-class areas, some of it extreme, must be addressed as part of any confidence-building measures.

Naomi spoke about the threat of violence and intimidation, which brings me to the issue of policing. At the time of the comprehensive agreement, Sinn Féin, the DUP and the two Governments agreed that certain steps would be taken on policing. We now need to know where all the parties stand on this issue. For example, the agreement referred to Sinn Féin member­ship of the new Policing Board, the establishment of a shadow Assembly Committee to consider the modalities for the devolution of policing and justice — and, within a month, to reach agreement on those modalities — and consequent legislation being enacted at Westminster.

I know that this has been dealt with in other areas, but the refusal of republicans to fully support the police and policing is another matter that appears to affect the judgement of the unionist community. That community feels that if Sinn Féin is not prepared to support the police, we are not much further on than we were three or four years ago when devolution fell. The unionist community also feels that once again, we are basing a process on Sinn Féin’s good intentions. There is no consensus within the unionist community to base anything on the good intentions of Sinn Féin: something more substantial is required.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): A series of proposals have been tentatively made. Mr McCausland made some that fall entirely within the confidence-building discussion, and Mr Ferguson made proposals that are more to do with culture. Ms Lewsley made the mother of all proposals, which does not fit neatly into either confidence building or culture, but which I am told is in order. Some members may wish to comment on that one, so we will leave it to the end.

Mr McCausland, I would like to tease out some of your suggestions. You mentioned the small minority communities in the border areas and your perception of the imbalance in the employment patterns in certain organisations. Are those proposals, or are they your views on the issues?

Mr McCausland: The DUP proposes that a fund be created for the isolated unionist communities along the border that have suffered as a result of ethnic cleansing over the years. The DUP also proposes that British passports be available for those who were born in the Republic of Ireland after 1941. A further proposal is that work be done with the universities to eliminate the chill factor that exists for young people from a unionist background. That is something for the relevant Depart­ment and the universities themselves to deal with.

I confess that I skipped the last page of my presentation, so I will make one other minor point: there should be a non-lottery fund for those who refuse lottery money on moral grounds. It discriminates against what may be termed “the evangelical Protestant community”, which refuses to take lottery money. That is a particular problem in rural areas.

The disparities in the voluntary sector and in youth-service provision were things the DUP was merely highlighting.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Naomi Long wishes to speak. If members wish to make any other proposals on confidence building, I ask them to do so at this stage. We will debate them and put them to the meeting, and then move on to cultural issues.

Mr Nesbitt: I know that you have previously taken composite discussion rather than strict segregation. I have some comments to make on what Michael Ferguson said, but you said that that falls under culture more than confidence.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): I was referring to his proposals, rather than his contribution.

Mr Nesbitt: So long as moving on does not preclude me from commenting.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will come back for a full series of presentations on the cultural issue.

Mr Nesbitt: I want to comment on remarks that other people have made — we have followed that procedure before.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is entirely in order. Do you wish to say something after Naomi Long has spoken?

Mr Nesbitt: I do not mind.

Mrs Long: I want clarification on some points. I have a specific point to make on Nelson McCausland’s proposal of a fund for isolated unionist communities along the border. The Committee agreed by consensus last week that funding should be addressed on the basis of need alone. If the Committee agreed Mr McCausland’s proposal, it would be contrary to what was agreed previously; we would be considering funding on the basis that those were isolated unionist communities.

The individuals concerned may get funding on the basis of need, and I would not quibble about that. However, why would the Committee suggest a proposal that specifies the political aspirations of individuals when it has already agreed that it should target resourcing on the basis of need alone? I have other comments to make on the presentation, but my question is specifically on that proposal.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): It would be helpful if Mr McCausland would comment at this stage.

Mr McCausland: The border fund would be for the border communities that have suffered as a result of ethnic cleansing, and it so happens that all of those are unionist communities.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Nesbitt, do you wish to comment?

Mr Nesbitt: Michael Ferguson’s point reflects the mantra that Sinn Féin repeats at each and every turn. Sinn Féin is the only party in Northern Ireland that keeps on about rights, equality, policing and justice for the people of the “North of Ireland”, as it euphemistically calls it. Michael Ferguson said that it looks for equality of civil, social, cultural and political rights and that those rights are to be upheld.

At the outset of this series of meetings I pointed out that in these discussions about preparation for Government and confidence building, governance and governing refer to an understanding and an observance of human rights. Those are the underlying bases of liberal democracies. I have asked Michael Ferguson before whether he accepts the international standards of human rights. Hansard will show that he said, “Yes, but not to be prescribed by it”, which really means “yes and no”. In other words, he gave a non-answer.

All I am saying to Sinn Féin is that I do not wish to deny any person equality of civil, social, cultural and political rights. However, it must be clearly understood that those rights are to be delivered in the context of Northern Ireland’s being legally a region of the United Kingdom, which is the country in which we sit at this moment. I do not ram that down anyone’s throat. Its full title is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and it is commonly called the UK or Britain or what have you.

Giving just one example, Sinn Féin and Gerry Adams often refer to the basic right of Northern people who have been elected to represent their electorate in the Dáil. No aspect of international law justifies such a right. It is not a basic right of people who are resident in Northern Ireland; it is not even an accepted norm. If we want to be confident about our future, we need to understand what rights we are talking about.

Sinn Féin says that, as unionists, we have to get our head round our stance. I retort that Sinn Féin has to get its head round the rights and standards that are expected in a normal, liberal democracy in twenty-first century Europe. Sinn Féin does not constantly peddle those rights, but it peddles others. Peddling those other rights undermines everyone’s confidence. It undermines the confidence not only of unionism, but of republicanism — republicans feel that they should have something to which unionists feel they are not entitled. Whenever demands are being made that are in excess of what is the normal standard, the feeling that a community has when it is trying to be at ease with itself is undermined.

I conclude on that comment, but I repeat that, as a unionist, I support equality of civil, social, cultural and political rights, the very words which Michael Ferguson used. However, we must understand those rights and, when we understand them, we must observe them.

Mr McGuigan: It is important that any future Government should prioritise the issue of poverty on the objective basis of need. The DUP, and to a lesser extent the UUP, propose that poverty should be tackled through special treatment. They argue for a two-tier sectarian approach to social and economic deprivation. That should not be the way in which any future government in the North tackles poverty.

10.45 am

Mr Ferguson: I want to comment on Nelson’s contribution. Unionists — and especially the DUP — peddle the flawed notion that community structures mean that there is no deprivation or poverty. The issue was debated on Lisburn City Council, and the DUP complained vociferously about the use of the Robson indices. DUP councillors argued that areas identified by the Robson indices as suffering worst from deprivation and poverty were nationalist areas.

New evaluations were conducted, and the Noble index was introduced, which reinforced the findings of the Robson index. The DUP then started to talk about the ideological construct of “weak community infrastructure” — if nationalists had a community infrastructure, it somehow suggested that nationalists were affluent. That is nonsense. I have had a quick look through the two documents here, and it is clear that there are huge disparities. The document deals with 180 jobs and a specific area of employment; it does not cover the wider area of the Six Counties. Statistics from the Department for Social Development and the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency clearly show that 80% of all neighbourhood renewal areas — that is, the most deprived areas — are nationalist areas; there is no getting away from that.

This debate, and the way in which this problem has been presented by my unionist colleagues, sectarianises poverty. Naomi’s point about border areas and attempts to put selective political tags on deprivation is fair enough. Sinn Féin continues to maintain that the best way to address poverty and deprivation is on the objective basis of need; the issue should not be sectarianised, as is being done here.

If Nelson, Dermot and others really want to address differentials and objective need, they must support the proposal to restore the institutions without delay. Under direct rule, there are holes in the education system, the health system, and so on. The fault lies with the DUP. That party has a chance to address objective need; it refuses to do so and gives one excuse after another.

For that reason alone, Patricia’s proposal for the immediate restoration of the institutions is useful. Although her political grandstanding may impress the press, it will not impress me. I am happy enough to support that part of the proposal. Sinn Féin has always been happy enough to support tackling poverty on the objective basis of need.

This morning, I spoke about the importance of rights for minority languages and extra clauses being inserted into the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, and about all that being implemented by the British Government. Rights should not threaten anybody. The issue of universities being cold houses has been raised, and we need to elaborate on that. The Irish language has been challenged in universities here. Why is the Irish language such a threat? Why was the Irish language a major issue when this debate opened this morning?

With regard to developing rights and best practice here and across this island, we should do it. We should not be held back because Europe has not done it. Concerning the right to speak in the Oireachtas, the Good Friday Agreement is an all-Ireland, international, binding agreement. I am an Irish citizen. I see no reason why I, or Mr Nesbitt for that matter, should not be able to address issues in the Oireachtas or anywhere else. It is my right as an Irish citizen. It is the right of people on this island, of whatever political perspective, to do so.

As to dealing with global issues, such as waste management or energy, we should maximise the value of an all-Ireland economy and work together on an all-Ireland basis in whatever forum is available to us, whether here or in the Oireachtas. The sooner we do that, the better.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): One of the joys of chairing this Committee is that there are never any pregnant pauses. [Laughter].

This debate has provoked a lot of interest.

Mr McCausland: If he is concerned about poverty, Mr McGuigan might want to encourage the IRA to hand back the Northern Bank money. So much money was involved that a lot of poverty could be eradicated. However, that is not anticipated.

My main point concerns a serious and central issue. As soon as unionists dare to raise an issue about inequality, differentials, discrimination or disadvantage that affects their community, Sinn Féin gets up on its high horse and suddenly it is a sectarian issue. The figures that I quoted this morning are taken from reports of the Equality Commission. Is the Equality Commission a sectarian body? Some people might say so.

These are standard figures. The facts are there. The Robson report, ‘Relative Deprivation in Northern Ireland’, was flawed, because Robson did not deal with all the aspects of disadvantage. That is why Robson was eventually ditched, and why the Noble report, ‘Measures of Deprivation in Northern Ireland’, is now Noble with amendments. Not all of the issues carried the same weight in calculating the Noble index of multiple deprivation. There were many aspects of disadvantage that should have been included and were not. One of the key issues for the unionist community is educational disadvantage.

Important issues have to be brought forward. In particular, let us nail this lie from Sinn Féin — and it is a lie — that it is a sectarian matter as soon as a unionist mentions something about disadvantage. My community and I have the same right to equality as anyone else. If it is good enough for someone else it is good enough for the community that I represent; I will not allow it to be discriminated against simply because members of Sinn Féin get on their high horse about it.

I also wanted to pick up on the university issue. There is a need to elaborate on that. It is clear from the universities’ own figures — not some sectarian figures dreamed up by someone for propaganda reasons — that there is an issue regarding the ethos of those universities. Last year the students’ union at Queen’ s University disobeyed guidance given to it. It breached the equality policy of its own university and, in that case, it is an affiliated part of the university.

There are all sorts of issues that I would be more than happy to elaborate on. As regards spending on youth work, my own district electoral area of Oldpark in Belfast spent £267,000 on full-time and part-time youth workers; that £267,000 went in its entirety to youth clubs in nationalist areas, despite the fact that one third of the children in that area are from the Protestant community. That sort of disadvantage is unacceptable, and to highlight that is not sectarian. The sectarianism is in the fact that it happened in the first place.

I am more than happy to debate those key issues. Why is the Irish language seen as a threat? Perhaps we will return to that under the heading of “Culture”, but not now.

Mrs Long: From the presentations and follow-up comments, there are many issues that we need to examine in greater detail.

First, Michael Ferguson stated that the Irish language caused a furore when it was raised as an issue, and that it was perceived as a threat. That is not fair. The problem is caused by the politicisation of the Irish language, not the language itself. For example, there is a lack of historical recognition of the Presbyterian Church’s role in keeping the Irish language alive when it would otherwise have died out. The Irish language has been politicised and made into an exclusive cultural captive. That does not reflect the language’s history. That is what irritates people, not the language itself.

Another issue has run through some of our discussions. Nelson asked whether we want two stable communities, peacefully coexisting side by side. Well, I do not want that, and I make that quite clear. I want a single, properly integrated, community living together, but not because of some benign apartheid. That is what Nelson was basically suggesting: two segregated communities.

Much of our discussion flows from the fact that people cannot see beyond those divisions. Unless we tackle those divisions, and the assumption that our problems will be solved simply by having two separate but equal communities, we will never get to the core of Northern Ireland’s difficulties.

Michael Ferguson accused Nelson and his colleagues of being sectarian because they spoke of unionist deprivation. Nelson said that Sinn Féin reacts badly when unionists raise the issue of deprivation. What makes the discussion sectarian is Sinn Féin’s focus almost entirely on deprivation in nationalist areas, and the DUP’s focus almost entirely on deprivation in unionist areas. It is not sectarian to care about deprivation and to want to tackle it, not according to the political affiliation of the individuals affected, but according to need. Unfortunately, we are not having that conversation, because deprivation in different communities — which is real, tangible and measurable — is being used as a weapon in a political argument. Using deprivation in a political argument neither advances the cause of people suffering deprivation nor, indeed, is particularly edifying for the parties engaged in the argument.

I do not believe that anyone can challenge the accuracy of the equality figures that Nelson circulated. Last week, during our discussion on equality figures and recommendations, when members were accusing other members of discrimination, I said that simply showing a disparity in percentages in the workforce and the background population does not prove that discrimination exists; it only proves that there is a disparity.

That has been taken further to suggest that some form of discrimination exists. That is a dangerous path to tread, particularly when the figures relate to workforces of approximately 30 people and, in all cases, fewer than 100. In those situations, a single individual joining or leaving an organisation can significantly change the workforce balance by between 1% and 5%, depending on the size of the workforce. To assume that that is evidence of discrimination is wrong.

We must examine whether those trends are there for a reason and, as I said last week, tackle the issues. Nelson has rightly highlighted difficulties in the broad unionist community with regard to funding. However, it is difficult to get those groups to apply for funding. It has been our experience that the funding is not discriminatory, but applications have not been forth­coming. Last week I argued that, in all issues of equality, we should tackle the reasons and not make assumptions.

11.00 am

That lack of confidence is a problem. A discussion of these issues in relation to people being fundamentally discriminated against and disadvantaged will not help to build their confidence. We ought to encourage people to believe that if they apply for positions in any of those organisations, they are as likely as the next person to be appointed.

We must engender real confidence in communities, and work with them, so that people feel equipped and able. That must be done on the basis of need, not on some notion of sectional division.

In the university sector, there has been a tug of war. From my own time at university, I remember just how repulsive university politics were. It would be unfair to imply that universities are creating a chill factor structurally. Student-union politics, and the machinations in the union, are repugnant to many students. Having witnessed some of the nonsense that went on in student politics in my days at university, it shocks me that I ever got involved in politics.

However, to suggest that that means that people cannot attend a course and participate in university life adds to the chill factor. Leaders of the unionist community send out messages that Protestant students are not welcome in Northern Irish universities. That is very dangerous. We must highlight and tackle the problems, but to suggest that the chill factor is more widespread than it is, and to plant that seed in the minds of people who would otherwise not perceive it in that way, can add to the problem rather than address it.

We must be very careful. This issue is not exclusive to the unionist community; today we are talking about what unionist people perceive to be the problem, but I have heard similar language, attitudes and arguments from those who represent the nationalist community.

Nelson spoke about nationalist youth clubs in his area. The only solution is to have youth clubs that everyone can attend. We need to move forward on the agenda of a shared future rather than simply dividing the pot so that everyone gets less and is constantly looking across the divide, disregarding need because “we” do not want “them” to get more. If we continue down that old path, we will continue to have an unsettled society. If, on the other hand, we move forward and explore the sharing of facilities and provision on the basis of need, those issues will not exist. Fundamentally —

Mr Poots: May I make an intervention?

Mrs Long: I am finishing.

Fundamentally, we have to address that issue.

Mr Poots: I want to ask a question.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is it a point of information, Mr Poots?

Mrs Long: I have finished.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): There are quite a few products of Queen’s Students’ Union here this morning. I am going to move on to one of them: Mr Attwood. Does that bring back happy memories, Alex? Unfortunately, it was 30 years ago.

Mr Attwood: Let us not go there, Chairman.

Mr Poots: Let us not run down Queen’s any more.

Mr Attwood: I want to bring some sense of cohesion to the debate. There are good reasons to sustain border communities and establish a balance in those that are no longer as balanced as they were. I have a proposal that the DUP and Sinn Féin may be able to sign up to: that consideration should be given to aiming resources at border communities and enhancing cross-border initiatives in those areas.

There are many cross-border initiatives in various parts of the North. That is not proposed to reassure the DUP for political reasons per se, but to recognise that there is a local unit of economic, social and agricultural activity in those areas, in which communities on both sides of the border work together for mutual development.

That happens in many councils, including those in Newry and Dundalk, and in various other places such as Fermanagh. There might be consensus for a proposal that would demonstrate that border communities are a valuable part of life on the island of Ireland, and that it is useful to sustain rural life on the border.

The South of Ireland is beginning to recognise the dangers of the flight from the west of Ireland and the consequences that the denuding of the population in the west is having on the overall development of communities in that part of the world. There are good reasons to sustain the communities in border areas. They have economic, social, educational and cultural needs, and they also add to the life of people in the North. There is evidence to back up the assertion that, in some parts of the North, people from one community or the other were particularly targeted, and they left their land and their area.

A proposal on the consideration of resources to target and sustain border communities would be welcome for many reasons, including some of those highlighted by the DUP. The enhancement of cross-border initiatives in areas where they already exist — and where they could exist — would be a way to recognise that there were sectarian intentions behind the paramilitary violence that went on 30 to 40 years ago. That was presented as another effort to force Britain out of Ireland, but there was a sectarian dimension that was particularly acute in those areas. The proposal should be much broader and based on other criteria, rather than that outlined by the DUP, although there is a degree of validity in what it proposes.

Students from certain backgrounds were not going to universities in the North long before any sense of a chill factor. If there was a time when the chill factor began, it was around the time when the Chairman and I were at Queen’s University.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Was that before the Boer War?

Mr Attwood: You and I might have contributed to that chill factor — if there was one.

In the 1970s, students from a particular background were leaving the North. There were linkages with universities in Britain, and students wanted to go there. Those students’ parents felt that this was not a good place for third-level education because of the politics and community tensions at the time. Also, some parents became able to afford to send their children to Britain. That pattern was already happening — it was inevitable.

I do not think that student politics should be criticised in the way that Naomi did. For example, in the early 1980s, I would have been worried about the nature of students if they had not expressed a view on the issue of the hunger strikes.

Mrs Long: I want to clarify that I was not at university in the early 1980s; I was at school. [Laughter.]

Mr Attwood: Naomi defined student-union politics in a rather abrasive way. I am trying to explain that if she were a student in the 1980s and did not express her views, or if Jim Wells did not have a view on the issue of the hunger strikes, or if I did not have a view, we were failing in our leadership function in the student movement at Queen’s University at that time. It can be argued that student politics were fragmented and became divisive, but people should not be beaten up for taking a stand based on principles and values when people were calling out for a stand to be taken.

Student politics became uneven and unbalanced thereafter, but that situation has been corrected in the last few years. Those who manage the universities in the North have taken initiatives to encourage students to stay, so the SDLP will not support the proposal on the chill factor. Students can get better quality education here. Universities have also taken initiatives to build up shared learning institutions, in much the same way that we should be trying to build up shared political institutions and shared arrangements in every other aspect of life in the North. The proposal on the chill factor would demean the initiatives that universities have taken to build inclusive and broad-based student populations.

I understand what the DUP’s proposal is aimed at achieving. However, trust and confidence — which is what we are talking about — would be built if the DUP would say here and now that it will live with the consequences of all the equality figures that reflect all aspects of life in the North. We live with the consequences of any of the figures that reflect Protestant disadvantage or unmet need. If we are to move this debate on, it would be helpful if the DUP were to declare that it accepts and will live with the consequences of any of the equality figures when it comes to any aspect of public policy or life in the North. In that way, we will probably make some advance.

Sinn Féin does not have clean hands in this matter. I remember talking about unmet Protestant need with a prominent community worker in nationalist west Belfast. That person said that, although it was accepted that unmet Protestant need existed, unmet Catholic need had to be addressed first. It does not. Unmet Catholic or Protestant need must be addressed proportionally and on a priority basis. However, that does not mean that one community should have its needs addressed before the next community has theirs addressed.

However, to provide some reassurance that this matter is not simply about staking out some narrow ground around a handful of organisations, it would be helpful if the DUP would accept that whether unmet need is Protestant or Catholic, rural or urban, it will live with the consequences of that as far as public policy in the North is concerned.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): There are five more members who wish to speak, and I propose that we call it a day after that point because we have 11 proposals to consider. However, not all of those who are listed to speak are proposers. Those members are: Mr McGimpsey, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Poots, Mr Ferguson, and Mr McCausland. We have given this matter a fair airing, and I will call it a day after Mr McCausland has spoken.

Mr McGimpsey: I thought that this morning we were trying to identify obstacles to the reinstatement of the Executive and the Assembly. I attempted to do that as a unionist representative. The loose headings that I identified were: the political process; policing; and poverty. Those are not exclusive to unionism, but I was highlighting the difficulties that the unionist population has with the ability of the political process to deal with our problems and whether to take, once again, the step to reinstate Stormont.

Poverty-related problems and the fact that there has been no appreciable change in the quality of life and well-being for unionist communities over the past eight or 10 years are real issues. There has been peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland; the economy has never done better, and in middle-class areas, for example, the value of the houses has doubled and trebled. However, in other areas nothing has changed — everything is exactly the same.

11.15 am

That is what I was highlighting as being an obstacle from a unionist perspective. Another obstacle is policing. I want to talk about the comprehensive agreement, violence and about the need to see an end to paramilitary activity.

All Michael Ferguson wanted to talk about was the Irish language. That seems to be, from Sinn Féin’s perspective, the obstacle to the reinstatement of the institutions. Mr Ferguson talked about the Irish language and its status; he spoke in the Irish language. Of course language is an area that must be addressed, and as a sector, it was treated comparatively generously under devolution. However, there is much more to this than language and anecdotal history.

Nelson made the point about the Robson index and the Noble indicators. Robson did not work. Areas of serious deprivation in south Belfast — areas such as Taughmonagh, Annadale flats, and so on — were counted in with the Malone Road. The Robson index gave the wrong answer; it did not address the issue. Need is the ultimate principle, so you start by looking at what the need is, and then you look at how to address it. Those are the issues within unionism.

Education is another important area. The way out of poverty is through work, and the way to work is through training and education. There are a number of themes flowing through that. Those are the hurdles. When we come to talk about culture, there will be other hurdles as well. I am not quite clear where this discussion is heading. Do we want to identify the hurdles that we see as obstacles to the reinstatement of the Executive and the Assembly?

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Our report will have three basic strands: those issues that we have agreed on, those issues that we do not agree on but do not see as major impediments to devolution, and those issues that parties have highlighted as being crucial. I suspect that much of this will fall into the middle category.

We have 11 proposals that various groups feel will take forward the issue of confidence building, which is more than is usual by a long shot. Perhaps members would consider whether their proposals identify major impediments or simply raise issues that they want highlighted.

Mr Nesbitt: I have two points, one is to do with need — and I hope that Alex is not going away, as I want to address some of his comments — and the second is about language. It was Michael Ferguson who first referred to addressing need. I have always advocated addressing issues on the basis of need. From a confidence point of view, my party and I have always advocated addressing disadvantage. There is no problem with the principle; the problem is how to actually address the need.

Alex asked if the DUP could live with the consequences of the equality figures. When he went down that line, my first thought was that I could not agree with that statement — never mind the DUP; it can speak for itself — because I do not live with the consequences. We need to address the consequences, which was the point that Alex went on to make.

Alex argued that need should be addressed on a proportionate basis; again, I subscribe to that. If 60% of the unemployed are from a certain community, they should get 60% of the jobs available. The problem is that nationalists, republicans, the Government, UNISON, the Equality Commission and all and sundry assume this great mantra. Two weeks ago, Michael Ferguson referred to the unemployment differential, with Catholics being twice as likely to be unemployed. The Government had a concept that that could be addressed on a proportional basis with new TSN, which is arithmetically and statistically impossible. If twice as many Catholics as Protestants are unemployed, and you recruit from the unemployed twice the number that you do from the Protestant community, you will still have the same unemployment differential. That is a statistical fact.

At a previous meeting, Alex said that I had a narrow perspective on equality. My perspective is to try to address the issue of equality as it should be addressed from an analysis of the statistics. It is on that basis that that need should be addressed proportionately. However, in doing so, the unemployment differential is not addressed, and nationalists and republicans have never got their heads around that.

Naomi said that disparity and discrimination are different issues. Although I agree with her, I also say that I am agreeing with her because she is now agreeing with me. I am not saying that she did not agree with me before, but let us get this right. Last week, I said that in six out of the past eight years, the public sector recruited more people from the Catholic community than would have been expected, given the proportion of applicants. I did not say that that was discrimination; I said that it pointed up a difference that must be addressed. The data do not state that there is discrimination; the data state that there is a disparity or a difference.

I welcome Naomi’s saying that we have to examine those trends. I wish that the Alliance Party — and I say this genuinely — would say so publicly. It is the Ulster Unionist Party that has called for those trends to be established. I was with the Minister this week, and I might as well have been talking to the wall. Not only does the Minister not listen but his officials advise him wrongly. They do not put these arguments to him. I asked an official a question at a ministerial meeting, and he went into typical civil servant mode: if you do not want to answer the question you have been asked, answer a different one. He did not even answer the question I asked; he answered a different one.

Mr McFarland: May I just seek clarification from Dermot? My understanding is that at some stage in the past we ended up, for whatever reason, with a disparity between the number of Catholics and the number of Protestants in employment. So there is a gap. We then put in anti-discrimination measures that prevent any discrimination against any community in employment.

As I understand it — and this is my question — unless we introduce some form of positive discrimination or some system to bring Catholic employment up to the level of Protestant employment, that gap will always remain because the fact that there is a disparity will not be addressed. This myth about employment is that there is a gap that will remain unless some action is taken to redress that gap, which is a legacy of the past. Is that a correct understanding of the problem? Is that a correct analysis of the difficulty?

Mr Nesbitt: It is a difficult question to answer succinctly, and I do not mean that in a patronising way. There are two points. There is a disparity in the employment and unemployment data that was brought about statistically by the fact that the proportion of Catholics actively seeking work is greater than the proportion of Catholics actually in work. Forty per cent of the Catholic population are seeking work and yet they have only 38% of the jobs, and that creates a differential. This differential was at its lowest in the early 1970s, so it has increased since then. I see that Sinn Féin members are shaking their heads, but they will see those figures in the 1971 census. However, because the myth was peddled — and it was a myth — that discrimination in the 1990s caused the differential, the Government assumed that they would introduce anti-discrimination laws to remove that differential. The problem is that, although they brought in the most robust anti-discrimination laws anywhere in Europe, the differential still exists. At the February 2006 British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference (BIIC), the Government reported that the differential was still about 2·1. Therefore, the wrong analysis and the wrong suggested approach will not provide the solution.

Mr Attwood: Will the member accept one point of information? His entire analysis is based upon only one sector of the potential employment workforce, namely, long-term male Protestant and Catholic unemployed.

Mr Nesbitt: No. It is —

Mr Attwood: You have said repeatedly that since the early 1970s, the differential between long-term male Catholic unemployment and long-term male Protestant unemployment has been around 2·1, and that that figure has not changed very much. However, equality legislation and policies have brought about an adjustment in the figures, given that there has been a lot of movement into the workforce. For example, more Catholic women have entered the workforce, and overall Catholic participation rates, with the exception of those who are in long-term unemployment, have increased. The differential is still far from perfect, especially in middle and senior-management positions, but the core problem of the long-term employment differential has not been addressed, and much more needs to be done.

However, issues that are connected to every other potential employee or workforce sector have been addressed over the past 30 or 40 years. Do not, therefore, draw conclusions from one particular argument about the overall equality approach.

Mr Nesbitt: To a certain extent Alex does not disagree with me; he is talking about a trend in long-term unemployment. The statistics refer to unemploy­ment, not to long-term unemployment, which is a subset of the unemployed. The member is correct in saying that the situation has changed over time. Unlike my colleague from the DUP, I do not refer to a unionist phraseology; I refer to Bob Osborne and Ian Shuttleworth’s ‘Fair Employment: A Generation On’, which concluded that most of the change that the member talks about was due to educational reform, economic change in the structure of industry and certainly not discrimination, as Government said was the case in the 1990s. That was not the cause of change, and the sooner we get our heads round that, the better.

Mr Attwood: When Queen’s University was exposed for its failures in employment practice, and when a report by Beverley Jones and Fiona Cassidy revealed the policies and practices that had been put in place, Queen’s began to turn the corner.

Mr Nesbitt: I ask the member, Chairman, to not refer to Queen’s. I could give examples of my own life and work there, and I resolutely refuse to do so.

Mr Poots: I endorse the point about Queen’s, but please do not refer to it.

Mr Nesbitt: Sorry.

Mr Poots: I am endorsing your request.

Mr Nesbitt: When I look over the transcripts, I see that Mr Poots often jibes and snipes from the side. That seems to be his trait.

Mr Poots: I thought that it was funny.

Mr Nesbitt: All I am saying is that the member should not go there, because I can make the comments. That is my first point.

However, I genuinely wish that the Alliance Party would come out publicly and support the fact that the trends in disparity are addressed —

Mrs Long: Will the member take a point of information? I have not suddenly reached a road to Damascus conversion in this Committee on the matter; I have been discussing it for some considerable time. We said it publicly and privately, and it is a matter of record on Hansard that I said it last week and the previous week. There is no need to appeal to me to say it publicly — I have already done so.

Mr Nesbitt: I am glad, but I do not want to see you getting upset by my comments.

Mrs Long: I am certainly not upset by anything that you have said, Mr Nesbitt.

Ms Lewsley: It must be his body language. [Laughter.]

Mr Nesbitt: Yes, it is back to that, Patricia. Unfortunately, Hansard does not record the ambience of the contribution, merely the words.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Thank goodness.

11.30 am

Mr Nesbitt: Moving to the second point, Mr Ferguson says that rights should not threaten anyone. That is true. Why is the Irish language a threat? It should not be a threat. Rhodri Morgan, the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales, answers questions fully in Welsh. Sinn Féin stated that it wishes to have the same rights for Irish speakers in Northern Ireland that Welsh speakers have. The difference is that far more Welsh is spoken in Wales than Irish is spoken anywhere in Ireland, and one can be very Gaelic-orientated and still be a British citizen. Rhodri Morgan is a member of the Welsh Labour Party. He respects the national law and constitution. Sinn Féin may not know that it is meant to do the same; however, it does not do so. Therefore, unfortunately, Sinn Féin has used the language as a political battering ram. I see that the member is shaking his head, but that is the case. If language were put in its proper cultural context — and we will come to culture later — the schism on the language that exists in the community would not exist.

Mrs Long refers to wanting a single, integrated community. I cannot support that. There can be one community with great diversity, and I presume that that is what she means.

Mrs Long: I ask the Member for clarification. Mr Nesbitt said that he could not support me in calling for a single, united and integrated community, yet he says that we can have a single community with much diversity, which is what he assumes I mean. Is he opposed to a single, diverse community?

Mr Nesbitt: Of course not.

Mrs Long: Then why does he not agree with what I said, if that is his presumption about what I meant?

Mr Nesbitt: I was just getting clarity from Mrs Long as to what she meant. When she talks about a single community, she seems to say, or imply, that there should not be diversity. The point about a community is that it is comprised of many sub-communities, and there should be diversity. We are not looking for assimilation; people can be integrated yet totally different.

Mrs Long: That is why I said a single, integrated community. That accepts that people could be different. Any interpretation of my comments comes merely from you, Mr Nesbitt, and was not put there by anything that I said.

Mr Nesbitt: I do not want to prolong this. I asked the question. She has given the clarity, and I welcome it. It is good that we have that on the record.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will return to cultural issues later, so there will be an opportunity to raise some of those points.

Mr Poots: I want to deal with the unemployment differential, which was the previous topic. There are significantly more people from outside Northern Ireland currently employed in the Province than there are people on the unemployment register. Jobs are available for people who want them. I suspect that if people were given three months to get a job or face withdrawal of benefits, the unemployment differential would disappear quickly and many of those who are currently unemployed would be happy to take up that employment.

I am disappointed at the SDLP’s attitude. The SDLP is good at highlighting whether nationalists are underrepresented in a particular area. It was quick to jump on the police recruitment bandwagon. When Ken Maginnis suggested that fifty-fifty recruitment might be a means of resolving that issue, the SDLP was happy to support that idea and is now its greatest proponent. However, whenever unionists identify issues of concern to their community — Mr McCausland mentioned ethnic cleansing in border areas — it wishes to dilute that and to demean the proposal on it through its counterproposal.

I do not know whether Mr Attwood has spent much time around the border recently, but some people are doing very well in those areas. I am sure that when they got their revised rates bills, they were very large — commensurate with their dwellings. I suspect that those people do not need a lot of help; they are getting a huge income, a lot of which is illegitimate.

As for the universities, there is a chill factor, and it has not been adequately addressed. There is a significant problem in the school of law in Queen’s University, in particular, which will filter through in the future to the Northern Ireland judiciary. It has already permeated to the extent that there are not enough solicitors and barristers from a Protestant/unionist background.

The problem started at Queen’s University school of law and has been developing, not for years but for decades. That must be addressed. Are young Protestants leaving school with substantially fewer qualifications to the extent that over 80% of those attending the school of law do not come from that community? That is not the case. Fifty per cent of school-leavers are Protestants, and I suspect that their qualifications are fairly similar. It is very clear that young Protestants do not want to go to Queen’s or to the University of Ulster, and there are specific reasons for that.

Those reasons are not being addressed, and the students’ union has strongly resisted addressing those issues. In Queen’s University in particular, the students’ union has demonstrated that it is not a welcoming environment for people from a unionist background. The SDLP wishes to portray itself as a non-sectarian party, but in essence, when we seek to address substantial disparities and discrimination against Protestants and unionists, the SDLP pooh-poohs that and claims that the only substantial degree of disaffection has happened in the nationalist community.

Ms Lewsley: Will you take a point of information?

Mr Poots: Yes.

Ms Lewsley: In my opening remarks, I agreed with Mr McCausland that there are gaps in the unionist community that need to be addressed. We all agreed around this table some weeks ago that equality was based on looking at need objectively. That is all the SDLP is asking for.

When Gregory Campbell talked about unemployment differentials in various sectors, I agreed that there is an issue, but we need to establish a structure that guarantees fair play for everyone. You are being unfair about the SDLP’s approach to the issue of equality and looking at need objectively.

Mr Poots: I accept that that is what you said. However, when we put it into practice, that is not what the SDLP is doing when need has been identified and brought to attention. For example, we made proposals about the Parades Commission —

Mr Nesbitt: Will Mr Poots take a brief point of information?

Mr Poots: I will when I have made this point.

Mr Nesbitt: It is on this point.

Mr Poots: We made specific proposals about the Parades Commission, because it has a huge chill factor in the unionist community. The SDLP said that it found the commission acceptable and that it was fine.

Mr Nesbitt: Does Mr Poots agree that, while you may address things on a basis of looking at need objectively, if you do not understand the dynamics of the problem to start with you have no chance of finding a solution?

Mr Poots: Yes.

Mr Nesbitt: The difference between unionism and nationalism may be in how both perceive the problem.

Mr Poots: I do not see that there should be a difficulty in understanding the problem. Unionists have been capable of accepting that, in many instances, people in the nationalist community have suffered over the years and have greater requirements for fair play in some aspects than in others. However, in the last 10-15 years, things have reversed significantly, and there is more significant deprivation in some unionist communities than in some nationalist ones. It has been more difficult to get educational resources pumped into unionist communities than into nationalist areas. Brain drain from the unionist community is more significant than that from the nationalist community. Those are issues of concern; they must be addressed and, in the long term, it will not be to the benefit of either community — or of the wider community — if that situation continues.

I want to respond to comments made by Naomi Long. Nelson McCausland produced figures that were taken from the Equality Commission’s reports. Mrs Long did not question the figures, but gave the impression that they did not show that there was a problem. Mr McCausland did not mention discrimination or disparity. Why is there disparity against the Protestant community? Are people in the Protestant community not capable of doing those jobs? I suspect that they are capable, so why are they not doing those jobs? They may not have applied for them, and we must ask ourselves why.

Why, for example, are Protestants not applying for jobs in the Equality Commission? Welcoming statements are issued, but the Equality Commission says that it does not get the numbers applying for the positions. It appears that Protestants are not applying for jobs in that industry in a significant way, so the figures produced are not balanced. However, many people have the educational qualifications for those positions.

A disparity exists right across the community sector, and that filters through to funding. The Protestant unionist communities are not getting a fair crack of the whip at the jobs that are available in the community sector. Why are they not in those jobs, and is the unionist community suffering as a result? The unionist community is suffering as a result of not having representatives in those jobs, and what is the Department for Social Development doing about it? Mr McCausland was right to highlight the problem: it should not be set aside and ignored, and we cannot pretend that it does not exist, because it does.

Naomi Long also referred to shared space. I wish that things were as Mrs Long wants to see them and that young people were able to go to the same youth clubs, and so forth. Again, my colleague Nelson McCausland did not refer to unionist youth clubs and nationalist youth clubs; he referred to youth clubs in unionist and nationalist areas, and there is a substantial difference.

I do not know whether Mrs Long could deliver it in her area, but could a youth club be established in the Short Strand/Albertbridge Road area for all the young people in that area to go to together? It would be very nice if it happened. In reality, that is not likely in the near future.

We must deal with realities, as opposed to what we might wish for. Mr McCausland said that in his area £267,000 was spent on one community and nothing was spent on the other community. I wish that that were not the case and that all youth clubs were together, but that is not how it is. Instead, hundreds of thousands of pounds are being spent on one community and zero on the other community. That is not right, and it does not stack up.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): This has had a good airing. We are coming to the main motions, and there are a couple of other issues. Proposals were made on the British passport issue and the lottery fund. It may be that everyone agrees with them, as they were not addressed in any of the comments. However, it may be time for Mr McCausland to beef those proposals up.

Mr Ferguson, I will take your proposal in the second round, as it falls into culture rather than confidence building.

Mr Ferguson: I appreciate that. However, I want to pick up on comments that have been made.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): You will be allowed to join in. I am just letting you know that your proposal is going into the next section.

The proposers must indicate whether their proposals are major impediments to devolution, or whether they are expressing a view on an issue that should be dealt with.

11.45 am

Mr McCausland: I want to clarify, for Mrs Long’s benefit, communities in peaceful co-existence, or benign apartheid as it is sometimes described. Sadly, the fact is that in some areas that would constitute progress. I would not wish you to think that that is my long-term aspiration — it is not. We want to see a community that is interdependent. However, as has been pointed out, the term “community” is used in various ways: perhaps “sub-communities” may be more appropriate. The aspiration of a shared future is the one that I was referring to, and I have no difficulty with that.

I raised the issue about non-lottery funding for people who refuse lottery money on moral grounds. That affects a significant number of institutions within the unionist community. A number of Protestant denominations will not take lottery money on principle. It might also have an impact in parts of Scotland, where there are similar denominations. It impacts particularly on rural areas, where there is a much higher level of church attendance and where church influence is much greater. The impact spreads across all areas of lottery funding. For instance, the Heritage Lottery Fund for buildings is a closed door to many groups. It is a non-contentious issue, and there should be some mechanism whereby such institutions could be accommodated. That is my proposal. The proposal about passports stands as well.

I was very careful to say with regard to the Equality Commission’s figures for the voluntary sector — and I hope that I have not been misrepresented or misunder­stood — that it is not about discrimination; it is about differential. If a differential in employment patterns is seen over a series of years — and I only have the figures for three years, but there is a similar pattern over all the organisations — then that clearly indicates a trend. It is not about one person here or one person there, or about one organisation or another over one or two years. It is about looking over a number of years at a trend that is quite clear across the board.

The implication is that if there is a differential, either the organisations are discriminating — and as I say, I do not that think is the case — or they are seeking to recruit from communities in which there is a differential in capacity. This is, therefore, a way in which you can, in a very rough form, measure the differential in community capacity and community development within the nationalist and unionist communities. A complex issue has been identified, and there is no single solution. It is around such things as how community development training is delivered, where it is delivered, and who delivers it. It is about training and a whole series of other issues.

We are saying that this has to be taken up by the Government at a central level and recognised and addressed as a complex issue. In the meantime, when organisations are undertaking their work, they should be recognising that there is a problem and that they have a role to play in addressing it, particularly when they seek to take on a representative role.

With regard to sticking by every figure that emanates from the Equality Commission — while it may collate information, its own figures for 2004 show that 59·8% of its staff who identified with a community said they were from the Roman Catholic community and 40·2% were from the Protestant community. That is a situation that has deteriorated year on year. The number of non-determined staff in that case is comparatively small.

I am never going to sign up carte blanche to every­thing that emanates from the Equality Commission. I will say emphatically that the principle of equality is absolutely fundamental. That is why there is a problem with the Equality Commission in areas such as youth provision, which it has not looked at, or the voluntary sector, which is in its figures but which it has not picked up on. This is about the commission’s failures and its almost selectivity about what it picks up and does not pick up. This differential has been happening within the commission’s own staff, and it has not been picked up. The commission should have been up front in saying that there is a significant problem, which it needs to address.

We have dealt with the passport and lottery funding issues. There are issues regarding provision for young people, and I am grateful to my colleague for clarifying this point. I did not say “nationalist youth clubs”; I was talking about youth clubs in nationalist areas or youth clubs in unionist areas. If somebody lives in Ballysillan, they are not going to feel comfortable using the two youth clubs in Ardoyne. That is a fact at the moment. We long for the day when we have a shared future and it is not like that any more, but now it is, and the result is that substantial numbers of young people in that area are denied access to youth provision.

The youth sector is like the schools sector: there are two systems. We have a statutory system provided by the boards and a voluntary sector that is almost entirely provided by the Catholic Church. Segregation is already built in, and there is a piece of work that needs to be done by the Department of Education, which is responsible for youth, and the Youth Council, and I am glad to say that the Youth Council is now leading the way with a mapping exercise that is dealing with how resources are allocated. That is something that was never done before.

We were told — and not everyone may be aware of this — that in a number of cases in Belfast all that happens is that there is a 3% increase on last year because the budget has gone up. If you were in last year, you are still in; but if you were not in last year, you get nothing. That is an untenable situation, and we need to address that aspect of youth provision as well as the voluntary sector.

The voluntary sector and the community sector play a significant role in our society. They purport to speak on behalf of large numbers of people and should, therefore, be reflective of the communities they serve.

Mr Ferguson: I want to pick up on some of Naomi’s earlier comments following references I made to Nelson’s submission. I was very specific in that I challenged the selective use of figures and artificial ideological constructs like “weak community infra­structure”. I was very specific in doing that. It is unfortunate that Naomi chose to polarise Nelson’s comments as well as my own. She did that deliberately because she wishes to present the Alliance Party as the voice of reason at all times. Sadly, particularly in this case, that collapses all too often into the rhetoric of community relations without any substance of equality. By doing so in this specific way today — by polarising the debate — the Alliance Party has deliberately and unfortunately sectarianised comments made by the DUP and us.

Mrs Long: Perhaps Mr Ferguson will explain how my comments have been sectarian. I have studiously avoided references to particular communities and have looked at and addressed the issue of need. Can he also explain how I misinterpreted his comments when he referred to Catholics being second-class citizens? What did he say that I misinterpreted?

Mr Ferguson: I would like to continue. Mrs Long and the Alliance Party have consistently and deliberately ignored comments that Sinn Féin and I have made, not only at the meeting today but at previous meetings when we were reinforcing the need constantly to ensure that if we address need, we address it objectively and do not sectarianise poverty. That was deliberately ignored.

There were references to the Irish language and Presbyterianism. As an Irish republican, I am very well aware of the role played by Presbyterians in the struggle for separation from England — and of the consequences for many of those Irish-speakers. Many of them, such as Henry Joy McCracken, were executed. I am well aware of that. Mrs Long and Mr Nesbitt ignore the fact — [Interruption.]

I thought that that would bring you round, Dermot. [Laughter.]

Mr Nesbitt: I have been saying to my colleagues that, since I live in Crossgar, I am well aware of the battles of Saintfield and Ballynahinch, and of the 1798 rebellion and the Presbyterian involvement in it. However, that is local history.

Mr Ferguson: Indeed it is. However, both members have ignored the history of refusal and discrimination concerning funding for Irish schools. I remember protests by Irish-speaking children outside the Department of Education because of such refusals. I remember Sinn Féin’s party leader, Gerry Adams, having to take delegation after delegation to meet the British Government because of refusals to fund the Irish language. Let us not leave that out. Mr Nesbitt’s comments would suggest that discrimination never took place. One wonders why we have an Equality Commission and a Human Rights Commission and why we are having this discussion today.

Mr Nesbitt: I did not say that.

Mr Ferguson: Moving on, Mr McGimpsey made a fair point about focusing on confidence-building measures. He thought that I had spoken only of the Irish language. That is both an equality issue and a human rights issue. I highlighted the need for the greatest demonstration of confidence, namely restoration of the institutions. If we achieve restoration of the institutions we can deal with all of the issues. We can deal with the issue Mr Attwood raised about the border — and I welcome his comments on development of the border areas and cross-border co-operation. Partition cut us off from our natural hinterland and wasted areas such as Newry. He would agree with me that we need to deal with structural disadvantage west of the Bann.

Mr McGimpsey is right. However, the biggest confidence-building measure we could take is to put the institutions back in place. If Mr McCausland is keen to address objective need, as I am, why then do we not have the institutions, and why do we not have accountable Ministers?

Mr McGimpsey made reference to violence. The IRA has given a good lead. Ulster Resistance and the rest of those organisations need to follow suit. That is the way forward. Who does not want policing? We need democratic institutions, functioning institutions, and restoration of the institutions to deliver the policing that the communities need. Restore the institutions. That will be the biggest confidence-building measure.

We do not have to trust each other. I know of no political party in the world that trusts its political opponents. It is not about trust. We have a legal framework within the terms of the Good Friday Agreement that gives us the opportunities not necessarily to trust each other, but to deliver institutions that build confidence — and only functioning institutions can build confidence and deliver it to communities. Telling people that they are the worst off, or the poorest, is not going to do that. Functioning institutions will make the difference.

Mr McFarland: With respect to a shared future and the way ahead, I was much taken, last week, by Mr Brolly’s full support for the integrated school system. He seemed to recommend that anyone who wished to educate children at a faith school should have to pay for it. That was the gist of what he said. I wonder whether Mr Ferguson would agree with that.

Mr Ferguson: The member is aware of Sinn Féin’s support for integrated education. Former Education Minister Martin McGuinness was at pains to support integrated education. I had representatives of Hilden Integrated Primary School with me recently. Mr Poots will know them because they also came to Lisburn City Council. That school is likely to be closed. My party’s stance is that integrated education is the way forward. The DUP is right, in a sense. Mr McCausland pointed out that we live in a society that is divided and diverse. We have a range of educational sectors that would be celebrated anywhere else.

Some people use the British Government’s approach to funding as an excuse to say, “There should not be so many sectors. The Irish-language sector and all the others should be removed. There should be only one sector.” In an ideal world, we would support pluralist education; however, conflict resolution is an issue. Since we have different education sectors, let us support them. Let us give people the opportunity to have the education of their choice and let us do so through institutions that work and function. That is the way forward. That is our corporate position.

12.00 noon

The Chairman (Mr Wells): We shall proceed to the proposals. I want to start with those that seem to be non-contentious. In saying that, no one has addressed them.

Mr McFarland: I want to make a general comment. The Committee has been meeting for three months, although I was absent for a short while. I have noticed that the three or four meetings that I have attended since my return have half evolved from the introduction of proposals that stand a good chance of getting consensus into a competition. My party has, so far, avoided that competition. If it continues, however, we must get involved. Meetings are centred on who makes proposals, and who from the other team will not support them. Afterwards, parties go straight into press releases. What used to be a good Committee system, in which people genuinely made proposals because they stood a good chance of gaining consensus, is moving towards competition. Proposals are not being made to advance the Committee’s work: they are being made in order to score points. I am worried that the Committee has got to that stage.

Chairman, you have pointed out that there are 11 proposals this morning —

The Chairman (Mr Wells): I have just counted them. There are only seven.

Mr McFarland: That is still much more than what we would normally expect on a particular issue. I wonder whether members have lost the plot slightly as to whether they want to make progress or score points. We can all score points. If we want to have a system of point scoring, we might as well get on with that. However, it will not achieve much.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Perhaps you pre-empt the decisions on the proposals. Some may get consensus; some may not. When members make proposals on issues that are of concern to them, it gives a structure to the debate.

Mr McFarland: I am concerned, Chairman, about whether those who have introduced the seven proposals will have an opportunity during the debate to review them, and whether everyone who made a proposal in the middle of a speech somewhere — [Laughter.]

I will rephrase that: whether everyone who dreamed up a proposal in the middle of a speech, which was subsequently recorded as such, merely wanted to say something off the cuff rather than genuinely want to make a proposal.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): We shall review the proposals. I want to start with those that seem to be less contentious and move up the ladder, as it were.

A proposal has been made with regard to National Lottery funding: to set up an alternative fund for religious groups that object to the use of money that has been raised from betting. Such groups could apply to the fund for money for church restoration, and so forth.

Nelson made a proposal about the difference between those who were born in the Irish Republic who wish to apply for a British passport vis-à-vis those who were born in Northern Ireland who wish to apply for an Irish passport. No one has commented on that being a burning issue.

Nelson also proposed the introduction of a “border fund” for isolated Protestant communities, to which Alex introduced an amendment. The proposal and amendment will be moved simultaneously.

There is a proposal on the perceived chill factor in universities. A proposal on youth provision has been suggested, although I am not certain whether Nelson wants to make a proposal or simply wants to indicate that he is unhappy with the current situation.

Ms Lewsley made a somewhat unusual proposal. If it were to gain consensus, we could finish business today. I expect that there will be debate on it.

Ms Lewsley: I want to comment on what Alan McFarland said. My proposal may seem contentious; however, it is, at least, encompassing.

My worry is that some of Nelson’s proposals, whether good or otherwise, deal with individual issues. Every member around this table could produce a wish list and name some of those issues. I have some serious concerns about that, as, I think, does Alan.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Sinn Féin will also have proposals when we move on to cultural issues.

Parties have made proposals in the past, and other parties have refrained from doing so. All the issues that have been raised are relevant to the subjects under discussion — there is no question about that. As Chair­man, I cannot tell a member that they should not make a proposal simply because I believe that they are trying to score points. Heaven forbid that a member of this Committee would try to score points off anybody else.

Ms Lewsley: I am not saying that this is a matter of point scoring. Nelson’s issues are specific to different sectors. We talked about unemployment figures at previous meetings, and we could all talk again about the gaps on both sides. I could make a proposal that money should be given to x, y and z, or that a special fund should be set up. I am simply worried about the route that the Committee is taking.

Mr McCausland: We would be deceiving ourselves and doing a disservice to the unionist community if we did not make absolutely clear the deep sense of alienation and inequality that exists. That issue must be put on the table. Politicians have not concocted this problem: there is a deep-seated sense of disadvantage in that community. Until that major obstacle is addressed, we cannot move forward.

I raised some issues this morning to bring a sense of reality and substance to the discussion; I could have raised 25 issues. We can talk in general about how wonderful equality is and how we must sign up to it, but at some stage we must tackle the issues. The equality issues that I raised have been ignored. Dermot Nesbitt and other members were right to point out that they have been talked about for years. However, they are just the tip of the iceberg; the bulk of the problems are underwater. Thus, it is important that we highlight them today.

We must also take cognisance of the fact that a series of communities have suffered from ethnic cleansing in border areas, which is a particularly sensitive issue.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am not going to reopen the debate. I will take comments only about Alan’s procedural point.

Mrs Long: There is a difficulty with a number of the proposals. Nelson used the word “perception”. I agree that perception of discrimination is different from the actual existence of discrimination; evidence certainly shows that a disparity exists.

The problem is that we are proposing ways to tackle this issue without having properly examined the evidence. These proposals attempt to find a cure for problems without first identifying the causes. Members may have opinions on what the causes are, but those opinions may not necessarily be based on evidence.

I am slightly concerned about some of the detailed proposals, not because I object to their detail or general thrust, but because they are not evidence based. That is a concern, and I do not know how that can be dealt with procedurally.

If this were a matter of studying the issues and producing evidence, consensus could be reached. However, it is a different matter to put forward a proposal to tackle a problem when the underlying causes have not been identified. I am not sure that consensus would be reached in that case.

I do not wish to denigrate any of the important issues that have been raised; my concern is about how the proposals are being tackled.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): A member is perfectly entitled to make a proposal. Other members have expressed concerns about the procedural approach, but it is entirely in order, and I have to put those proposals to the Committee.

Mr McCausland: Let me make a suggestion. This morning we identified areas of concern to the unionist community. Perhaps there could be a general proposal about unionist alienation, citing areas of particular concern such as disadvantage, youth issues, the community sector and the significant work needed to address them. The issues are now on record, and that is important, but a general proposal might draw them together.

Mr McFarland: We agreed that we should bring issues to the table and alert our parties and our communities to those that might prove difficult in firing up the Assembly again. The difficulties that Nelson has set out today are genuine. There is a perception, rightly or wrongly, that some effort needs to be made to recognise and address the issues. Perhaps Nelson could produce a composite proposal setting that out. Other parties should not have a problem with recognising that unionism has a difficulty with some issues. It is not unreasonable to call for those issues to be examined and for detailed evidence to be identified so that we can find a solution.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Would it be possible, Nelson, to produce such a proposal over lunch and bring it back to the Committee at 12.45 pm?

Mr McCausland: OK.

Ms Lewsley: At one of our earlier sessions on equality issues, there was some toing and froing over a proposal. The parties worked together over lunch and came up with a form of words on which they could all reach consensus. Would it be possible to do that in this case?

Mr McFarland: Perhaps some of the team, having heard our discussions, might rustle something up that all the parties could come in behind.

Mr Nesbitt: We did that two weeks ago.

Ms Lewsley: It took five or 10 minutes.

Mr Nesbitt: The officials did it. It would be good to revisit the proposal that we agreed two weeks ago and to which all parties subscribed. It was a composite proposal that was drawn up by officials over lunch —

Ms Lewsley: I am sorry, but it was drawn up by the political parties and given to officials.

Mr Nesbitt: What I asked was that the officials work on it and present something on which the parties can agree. I do not know who wrote it up.

Ms Lewsley: The political parties wrote it up and gave it to the officials.

Mr McCausland: I will undertake to produce something over lunch.

Mr Nesbitt: It is the parties who must draw up a proposal.

Mr McCausland: I said that I would draw something up and pass it round for consideration.

Mr Nesbitt: It might help if a composite proposal were to come from the Committee.

Mr McCausland: That is the aspiration.

Mr McGuigan: We recognise that it is important that the Preparation for Government Committee deal with poverty and social and economic disadvantage so that the Assembly can tackle those issues when it is set up. Any proposal should be general and should call on the Assembly and the Executive to tackle poverty and social and economic disadvantage —wherever they may exist.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): I think that the DUP proposal will be a bit more specific than that.

Mr Ferguson: That is my concern. There is a perception of alienation, deprivation and poverty, real or imagined, in the unionist community. That perception has been fostered by the absence of functioning institutions. The DUP failed to support the institutions when they were up and running, and I fear that this is more prevarication to avoid doing what needs to be done. What needs to be done was set out in the Programme for Government under the previous Administration, and it was, as Philip pointed out, about addressing disadvantage and need.

We should agree on a general proposal that does not politically tag or sectarianise poverty, alienation and need — they are common afflictions. The way forward, if the DUP will agree, is to formulate a general proposal centred on the Programme for Government under the last Assembly.

12.15 pm

Mr Attwood: I want to give Nelson some guidance on the SDLP’s perspective. For any proposal to be agreed by us, it must be broadly based. I could have come to the Committee this morning and talked about the figures relating to the allocation of Invest Northern Ireland money across the North. I could have put forward a proposal referring to the remarkable disparity between the money allocated to north and west Belfast and that allocated to south and east Belfast — and I include all parts of north Belfast, not only the nationalist areas. Exactly the same applies to the difference in allocation of Invest NI resources east and west of the Bann. That creates a lack of opportunity for the communities in those underfunded areas and a sense of alienation, because people feel hard done by, currently and historically.

Therefore, any proposal touching on Nelson’s community’s sense of being disadvantaged or discriminated against — as well as cases of real disadvantage — must be balanced to recognise the nationalist community’s sense of being disadvantaged in relation to many other public policy issues. The SDLP suggests, therefore, that the proposal should address the causes or perceptions of nationalist or unionist alienation — or common alienation — in relation to the allocation of resources and the development of policies. The implementation of the proposal can be informed by some of Nelson’s comments as well as comments made by other parties on particular matters.

Mr McCausland: I did not mention poverty, because that is a subject for another day. This is about disparity and differential and, in some cases, discrimination — although, having said that, I will be referring to matters this afternoon in which discrimination is to the fore.

I have a stronger sense of what the unionist community is thinking than Michael Ferguson does. The issues and their causes are very much in the minds of —

Mr Ferguson: Nelson, if you tell people that they are hard done by, they will think that they are.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Dermot’s contribution will end the discussion, because I have given every party an opportunity to speak.

Mr Nesbitt: Nelson said that he did not mention “poverty”. However, whether the words used are “disparity”, “disadvantage”, “discrimination” or whatever, it is also about poverty, of which unemployment is one of the stronger measures. Just because the word poverty was not mentioned does not mean that it does not exist.

Chairman, I have a suggestion on procedure. Any proposal should be from the entire Committee, as distinct from a proposal submitted by one party and endorsed by this Committee: there is a big difference.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Naomi, have you any views on that?

Mrs Long: No. The Alliance Party can discuss its views with Nelson over lunch as he formulates the wording of a proposal. For the Alliance Party to be comfortable with supporting the proposal, it must be sufficiently broadly based to deal with the points relating to discrimination and people’s perceptions of discrimination that have been raised by all parties round the table.

The proposal must also take into account the changing nature of our community and those who have come from other cultures and other countries and may feel alienated from politics, society in general and the workforce. For the wording to be right, that must be reflected, and the Alliance Party wishes it to be included in the proposal.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): As it is now 12.19 pm and lunch is at 12.20 pm, we will adjourn to enable the proposal to be drafted. We will consider the proposal at 12.45 pm and then move straight on to discussing cultural issues.

The Committee was suspended at 12.19 pm.

On resuming —

12.49 pm

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Dr Birnie is replacing Mr Nesbitt. Dr Birnie, I understand that this is not your first time with us.

Dr Birnie: It is.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): On the PFG Committee?

Dr Birnie: Yes.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): In that case, we must ask whether you have any interests to declare.

Mr A Maginness: Except your genius.

Dr Birnie: No.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): I welcome Alban Maginness to the meeting. He dropped in just before we adjourned. We have a good turnout. I alert members that I have a slight problem in that I hope to leave around 3.30 pm.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Constituency work is always a bit of a pain, but it must be done.

We adjourned in order to allow Nelson McCausland to come up with a composite proposal aimed at reaching consensus on the matter at hand. Are we in a position to do that?

Mr McCausland: There will not be agreement among the parties, so I will submit our proposal. Perhaps there will be some degree of support for that.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): The proposal is that the PFG Committee recognise that community disadvantage and alienation are obstacles to political progress, and that that is particularly evident within the unionist community. Is there consensus on that?

Members indicated dissent.

Mrs Long: May we propose an amendment?

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes.

Mrs Long: Alienation, deprivation, disadvantage and lack of confidence exist, and are barriers to progress. The final sentence uses the words “particularly evident within the unionist community.” Instead, we could say that where those conditions exist, or are perceived to exist, action should be taken to tackle them objectively based on need.

Lord Morrow: It is not a perception, Mr Chairman.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is that an acceptable amendment?

Members indicated dissent.

The Chairman (Mr Wells): That amendment is not accepted.

Mr McGimpsey: Mr McCausland said that no one mentioned poverty. I mentioned poverty earlier. As a unionist addressing the obstacles to the reinstatement of the institutions, it seems to me that this is a key issue. My suggested wording is:

“Disadvantage within communities seriously undermines confidence in the political process within those communities.” I suggest adding: “Curre