Mr. Rory Montgomery:

The Deputy is right. That is an interesting point. Reopening the agreement in my view would mean abandoning the idea that a broad consensus in society is needed to continue. It would also mean abandoning the idea of strands one, two and three, all of that, as well as the rights and equality provisions. The St. Andrews Agreement already represented an important review or revision of the strand one institutions because it meant that the DUP or Ian Paisley, as its representative, was not obliged to present himself alongside Martin McGuinness for a single vote in the Assembly. That was symbolically very important for him. The two were chosen automatically and not through a vote of the Assembly. One might ask what difference it made but it made quite a big difference in reality.

I think one can look at things. The whole petition of concern mechanism has been grossly abused by the DUP in recent years. One of the weaknesses of the d'Hondt system and one of the big failures of the agreement has been its inability to deliver good and effective government. Part of the issue is that this may be the inevitable counterweight to there being an all-inclusive Executive without any real opposition. These seem to be the kinds of issues that could usefully be debated without going into the fundamental principles, but where do you draw the line?