Lord Empey:

I will deal with the last point first. The petition of concern is a very important piece of the architecture of the Good Friday Agreement. It was deliberately put in so if one section of the community felt its interests were being seriously affected, there would be a mechanism in there to protect it. In the first Executive, while there may not have been a written rule, where at least two members made clear their opposition to a particular proposal, the proposal would not go forward. In the second Executive, that is the 2007-11 one, votes occurred where decisions are taken on a majority vote. That is not something I was happy seeing.

I agree that the petition of concern mechanism has been abused. I looked at some figures some years ago. My party signed two petitions. Another party signed 39. Indeed, it was once used to protect a committee chairman from having a vote of no confidence put on the Order Paper. That was way beyond the scope of anything we envisaged for the petition of concern. It was abused. If there are ways in which minorities can be protected, I think one would have to take a fairly open mind on that. However, like all of these things, if you start meddling with one wee bit here, it can have unintended consequences somewhere else. In principle, I would not object to the concept of looking at it but I am just saying that, like everything in life, there is always something. You cannot design something that is incapable of being misused. You can design the best car in the world, but if you have a rubbish driver, there is a limit to what you can do. In principle, I would have an issue with looking at it. Minorities have to be protected. We got the big picture right in that, if there was something of constitutional significance happening, the petition of concern was there for somebody to put their foot down and say they were not going with it. The principle of it is a good principle.

With regard to border poll, you first have to establish that there is an appetite for it. Mr. Brady talked about the difference between civic unionism and others. There always will be a difference between those of us who are active in politics, and that applies in Mr. Brady's tradition as well as mine. There are people who are dedicated and enthusiastic and are devoting their lives to something and there are other people on the periphery who are living their lives and may have a bit of interest now and again. There is always a broad range of interests. That is true in most walks of life. I just do not at the moment see that this is a priority in most people's lives. I cannot even imagine what sort of position we would be in if we ended up in the middle of such an operation right now. I cannot even think of what it would do to us. If evidence emerges that there is a volume of people likely to represent at least 50% wanting to see change, there is a mechanism to test that. As I said, I do not think we are there.

Mr. Brady spoke about preparation. I think the onus is on those who wish to succeed in their operation to prepare. They cannot expect people who take a different view to sit down and help them prepare their own execution, politically speaking.

It is not a priority for most families at the present moment as they are sitting in cold houses with empty fridges. If we spent some more time on that issue, I believe relationships would improve, and there is evidence that has happened.