Ms Dolores Kelly:

I thank members for their comments and support for the reconvening of the civic forum and, more importantly, the principles behind it. I would like to dispel some of the myths articulated, particularly by Unionism, in relation to the cost of the forum and the view that it is a talking shop. That is an absolute nonsense. Millions of pounds is being spent on the dysfunctionality of our society because of a failure to get to grips with a shared future and reconciliation or with the issues around parades, on which issue the Haass-O'Sullivan talks had hoped to make progress. The cost of not doing anything is much greater than the half million budget initially set aside for the civic forum. I believe that the issue of costs can be appropriately addressed by a reconvened civic forum. As stated earlier by Mr. Dallat, MLA, many people in society are, unfortunately, becoming increasingly disconnected from the Assembly. Some see it as a very expensive talking shop, from which there has been a lack of legislation coming forth owing to the dysfunctionality of the Executive, particularly the OFMDFM committee.

On Deputy Feighan's question in regard to the powers of the civic forum, it does not have any governmental powers or powers of legislation. It was envisaged it would have a role in testing various government policies. For example, the chaos around education and the proposals around welfare reform are two good examples on which there could have been contributions from civic society, including community volunteers, trade unions and business. Business communities in the North favour all-Ireland business proposals. InterTradeIreland is seen as one of the North-South bodies that is making progress. There is widespread support across a wide range of community partners for such proposals.

The will of the Assembly is that the civic forum be re-established. This is borne out by two votes. Deputy Ferris spoke about the Unionist veto. The First Minister and his party - this relates back to the point made by Mr. Murphy, MP, in regard to the bill of rights - and others appear to be frightened by the participative democracy proposals. They constantly run to the courts in relation to decisions by the Executive, such as the finance DUP Minister taking the Agriculture Minister to court last Christmas in relation to the transfer of funds from farming to rural development. As the judge said in that case, this is occurring because of political failure. There is widespread frustration not only among political parties and anoraks but across civic society. This was borne out by the number of people who found their voices during the Haass-O'Sullivan talks and put forward proposals which were of a concrete nature, particularly the victims' groups which made good submissions in relation to how to deal with the past on an ethical, comprehensive and moral basis.

The civic forum has a North-South dimension. We are seeing a great deal of roll-back within Strand 2 of the Good Friday Agreement. I believe the two Governments as co-guarantors of the Agreement need to hold to account the First and Deputy First Ministers in terms of their particular responsibilities in relation to all-Ireland institutions. For example, we still do not have the parliamentary cross-Border councils or assembly associations envisaged in the Good Friday Agreement and there has been a dilution of some of the North-South bodies. At a time of economic recession and challenges these issues should be being grasped on an all-Ireland basis. This is resulting in disengagement by wider society with the Assembly and an increase in street violence during parades. I participated over the Christmas period in the Haass-O'Sullivan talks, during which I learned that a small minority of the population in Northern Ireland, namely, people within the Orange Order and retired police officers, have the most say. This is where we are seeing the hold-back. Political parties are looking to a small constituent group of the Protestant Unionist population in terms of Northern Ireland is being moved forward rather than to a greater number of people for the greater good.