Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are running a bit late but we will try to move along as swiftly as possible. As members are aware, representatives from the SDLP are here to discuss the Civic Forum for Northern Ireland. The forum was provided for within the Good Friday Agreement to provide for a broad range of voices in community relations and stimulate informed public debate in respect of key societal challenges. As yet, it remains a non-implemented provision of the agreement. We are discussing the value of a consultative forum and steps required for its implementation with representatives from the SDLP. On behalf of the committee, I am very pleased to welcome John Dallat, MLA, who is a neighbour of mine across the Border and who visits Donegal quite a bit and has reasons to be there. I also welcome Ms Dolores Kelly, MLA, who has also been pushing this agenda for a long period of time and Ms Caroline Mc Neill, who is policy advisor to the party.

Before I invite the witnesses to make their presentations, I must read the following into the record. I advise witnesses that they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of utterances at this committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease making remarks on a particular matter and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their remarks. Witnesses are directed that only comments and evidence in respect of the subject matter of this meeting are to be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that where possible, they should not criticise nor make charges against a Member of either House of the Oireachtas, a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I now call on Ms Dolores Kelly, MLA, to proceed with her opening statement.

Ms Dolores Kelly:

I thank the Chair for accepting our request to make a presentation. We will deliver our presentation in two parts. Mr. Dallat, MLA, will set the scene and I will take over from there. We are very happy to at least attempt to answer any questions the committee may have. I thank the committee for the invitation to be here this morning, which is very much appreciated.

Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call on Mr. Dallat to make his presentation.

Mr John Dallat:

I am glad the Chairman introduced me as a neighbour. Given that my mother was from Creeslough and my wife is from Carndonagh, I claim that privilege of being a neighbour of the Chairman. Of course, we know each other in other respects as well as in respect of cross-Border transport.

I have been in the Assembly since 1998. It is worth recalling that the civic forum was created under the terms of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement and made up of members of various civil bodies. It has, of course, no legislative or governmental powers and fell into abeyance in 2002 after the suspension of the assembly. Following the flags protests in 2012, my colleague, Ms Dolores Kelly, MLA, wrote to the members and various groups of the forum and we were overwhelmed by the response we received from them. It was clear that there was a need. On a personal basis, as an elected representative who has served in the assembly since its beginning, I know something that the Northern Ireland Assembly needs is missing.

We are in every respect a fledgling democracy. It is foolish if not arrogant to believe that the political parties can really create a broad spectrum of democracy without the involvement of the wider community. The civic forum did not last for very long but I remember it as something that was absolutely critical and essential. One of the reports in which I was particularly interested was the one on literacy and numeracy because we have that serious problem. That report was superb. Any legislative assembly or government would have been proud to have received it. Sadly, that did not happen.

In recent times, the SDLP has put forward motions on two occasions to bring back the civic forum, both of which were passed. It has not happened. There is a report sitting in the office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister since 2007. There has been no response. I suspect that report is a very positive one that sets out very good reasons why the civic forum should be reconstituted but we have not got it. Recent events in the North indicate that a broader body of opinion is badly needed so that we can create a truly participative democracy and give a strong voice to the wider community. I am sure all political parties in the North are concerned that the level of participation in voting is constantly dropping, which we believe is an indication that the wider community has lost interest. Those of us who are nostalgic remember the difficult work that was done leading up to the Good Friday Agreement and getting over 90% of people in the Republic and over 70% in the North to support it. It is crazy to take that tier away. In my introduction, my impassioned plea is to ask to every support not just because we want a civic forum and it is a wider spectrum of democracy but because it is if we are to shore up, which is possibly the wrong term, and continue the struggle to make sure democracy stays alive.

We do not spend all our time talking about flags, placating paramilitary groups, throwing money at them and all the other things have been going on. We need the civic forum for good reasons and I am sure we will have the opportunity this morning to spell out in greater detail why we believe that without the civic forum, we have a real problem in the North. The assembly - the big house on the hill - on its own is an isolated place. It does not encapsulate or relate to the wider community in the same way as would happen in a normal democracy where there is consensus. At this point, I am pleased to hand over to my colleague, Ms Kelly, MLA.

Ms Dolores Kelly:

I want to put on record our party's thanks and appreciation to the Tánaiste for his recent remarks in support of the party's call for the implementation of the Haass-O'Sullivan talks and his commitment to opening Government records relating to any mechanism that might be established in dealing comprehensively and ethically with the past. It is important to note that at the outset. The committee may know that in respect of the Haass talks, there was an overwhelming amount of response right across civic society from individuals, trade unions and other community and voluntary organisations. This is an example of where civic society has sought to engage. There will be a call for a compromise rally in Belfast city centre this Sunday. This rally wants to see the parties engaging and dealing with those contentious issues of parading, flags and the past that have not yet been dealt with.

Another aspect of the civic forum is that there would be an all-Ireland consultative forum to partner with a similar body in the South. That remains an unfulfilled promise and commitment of the Good Friday Agreement. As members will know, equality and human rights were at the core and, indeed, a compromise of that agreement which is an international treaty between two sovereign governments and the British and Irish Governments are co-guarantors of that agreement. We believe that more needs to be done and more pressure applied to the Executive and in particular to the Unionist parties in the Northern Ireland Executive.
The victims' groups in particular have been very powerful over the past number of months. Despite their differences of opinions and their different experiences of the conflict they have spoken with one voice in their demand for a mechanism to deal with the past in order to address issues of concern with regard to justice and for finding out what happened by means of truth recovery. Their voices have been very powerful and the victims have stayed on the same page, so to speak, in their call and their commitment to the process overseen by Richard Haass and Megan O'Sullivan.
Those are examples of how civic society can put pressure on the political parties. It was anticipated that dealing with the past would be the most potentially contentious issue where there would not be agreement at the Haass talks, yet it is the issue on which there is most agreement about the mechanisms. That is a very fine example of how civic society can play a role in setting the agenda for political parties.
The North is still very much in recession with high levels of unemployment. We have a housing crisis and a health crisis. Civic society is at a loss. As John Dallat, MLA, commented, some opt to be increasingly disengaged from the political process. It would appear that our society is being held back by the interests of select interest groups. In our view the civic forum could provide an opportunity to allow the voices to be heard of those who believe themselves to be marginalised.
I did not attend the initial civic forum and we acknowledge that there were flaws in its mechanisms and how it was to be established. The people who responded to our letters asking for their views on whether the civic forum should be reconvened, said as much. However, they agreed with the principle that there was a role and a place for such an institution. The fact that the review of the civic forum has not been published is a very poor decision which suggests to me that the review recommends that the civic forum should be re-established because what has one to fear from publishing the report. This week in the Northern Ireland Assembly the First Minister made light of the civic forum when he said it was not an issue which was raised with him on the street. This attitude does an injustice to those people who want to see a greater participative democracy.
I will give an example of how accountable participative democracy can work, an issue which is also pertinent to the South. I refer to Mapping the Rollback? - Human Rights Provisions of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement 15 Years On, recently published by the Committee for the Administration of Justice. I suggest this committee might wish to hear from that committee about its work. It refers to accountable participative shapes of governance as envisaged by the Good Friday Agreement being very possible. Good participation leads to good outcomes. We have seen it in mental health where the participation of service-users and carers in a Belfast mental health rights group led to the implementation of the card-before-you-leave appointment card system across accident and emergency departments in Northern Ireland. As a result of this initiative, 160 people every month who are in mental health distress now get follow-up appointment and support which they would otherwise not have. That is an example of how participative democracy can make a real difference to the lives of people. I will conclude by quoting from Inez McCormack who when speaking to an American audience about the MacBride principles, said:

We can all deliver the rhetoric which offends nobody but the dispossessed. For those who have can always argue that tomorrow is the right time for change. For the have-nots, today is not soon enough and we can only hope for their generosity of spirit in forgetting their yesterdays.

Frank Feighan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Dolores Kelly, MLA, John Dallat, MLA, and Caroline McNeill to this meeting and to Dublin. I thank them for presenting this initiative to reconvene the civic forum. I congratulate them for successfully raising the matter in Stormont. The civic forum is a commitment in the Good Friday Agreement. It crossed political boundaries and ensured that the pressure from political parties was avoided.

Members of this committee visited Belfast before Christmas in 2012. We went to the Newtownards Road for the opening of the Skainos centre and we had meetings with various groups. We were quite convinced that everything was okay. Martin McGuinness, MLA, and Peter Robinson, MLA, addressed that huge attendance in what is loyalist east Belfast and in my view this was a cause for celebration. However, less than seven days later, all hell broke loose on the same streets which shows that it is a very difficult situation. I cannot see any reason the civic forum could not be reconvened.

What powers has the civic forum? Are the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister supportive of reconvening it?

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the delegation and I thank John Dallat, MLA, and Dolores Kelly, MLA, for their contributions. I fully support the establishment of the civic forum and hopefully we can have the North-South consultative forum established as well. I have tabled numerous parliamentary questions in the House in order to keep it on the agenda. Before the delegation came into the meeting, Conor Murphy, MP, made the point that demonstrates why there should be a civic forum. We were discussing the importance of the Haass talks, the progress made and the disappointment that the process has not been completed. He outlined the importance of the Haass-O'Sullivan talks and he referred to the fact that up to 600 submissions were made by individuals, groups and organisations. These submissions demonstrate that civic society wants to be involved. It is very remiss and if it is a matter of the competence of the Executive then it is a scandal that the forum has not been re-established. I understand that the re-establishment may be a matter for devolution. I wish the delegation well in its work to have it re-established. We need the involvement of civic society. It can suit the public services well to have fewer fora to answer to. I am not making a political point but the abolition of town councils and other bodies is ideal from the point of view of the public service. I mean no disrespect to members of the public service who work in the Oireachtas but I believe it suits the public service to have fewer fora to service and to answer to. The delegation has made a very good case for the need to re-establish the civic forum.

Ms Margaret Ritchie:

I thank my colleagues for attending. It seems that we shared a train together from Newry only a couple of hours ago.

Several serious issues are involved. I come from a position of strongly supporting the re-establishment of the Civic Forum for Northern Ireland and the North-South Consultative Forum. It is important that we view civic democracy as having an important contribution to make. People felt that they were silenced when the civic forum fell and the institutions were dissolved in 2002. The Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, OFMDFM, has steadfastly refused to publish its review of the civic and consultative forums. Could Ms Kelly, who served on the Assembly's OFMDFM committee, throw some light on these possible refusals?

I wish to make a couple of points about Deputy Smith's statement on the role of civic society in the Haass talks. Some 600 submissions were made. What role would the civic forum have in supplementing the work of the Assembly, the Executive and other Northern organisations and how would that tie in with the consultative forum? Too often, civic society feels silenced on many matters to do with the past, parades, contentious issues and wider issues, for example, health and education, in which respect Ms Kelly rightly stated that there was a chaotic situation. Civic society is good in terms of North-South work, as there are many common denominators. The political classes can learn from what civic democracy and civic society are telling us.

Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Ritchie. Next are Mr. Murphy and Deputy Wall.

Mr. Conor Murphy:

For many years, we have supported the re-establishment of the civic forum, an outstanding matter under the Good Friday Agreement. This committee has undertaken to perform an audit of outstanding matters, including the all-Ireland consultative forum and a Bill of rights. As a consequence of the St. Andrews Agreement, Acht na Gaeilge is another outstanding matter.

The reality is that unionism has been hostile to the idea of a civic forum, an all-Ireland consultative forum, a Bill of rights and a review of the North-South implementation bodies and has used its position in the Executive and the OFMDFM to veto any development in or discussion of these matters. This is where the problem lies. There is an appetite in civic society across Ireland-----

Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Someone's mobile telephone is interfering. Just put it on the ground.

Jim D'Arcy (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not mine.

Mr. Conor Murphy:

It is not mine either.

Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Somebody owns it.

Mr. Conor Murphy:

There is an appetite, as evidenced in the submissions to the Haass talks, for civic society to make a contribution. There are other vehicles for that, but the Good Friday Agreement envisaged a formal role linked to the working of the Assembly and, through the consultative forum, the all-Ireland arrangements. It is necessary to bring the civic forum back and the consultative forum into existence for the first time.

This is the nub of the problem. Unionism has been hostile to these bodies, including the North-South bodies even though it continues to operate them, for example, the North-South Ministerial Council. Unionists have used their positions in the Executive to stifle any development, discussion or production of a report in respect of these bodies. Pressure needs to be applied by political representatives, the two Governments, which are the guarantors of the international agreement between them, and civic society North and South to the effect that we want a forum, a space to have a formal input rather than just an informal input that is requested by various bodies as situations arise. We want a formal arrangement under which we can develop ideas and make a contribution to politics in the North and the development of its society. This problem needs to be shifted.

Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator White will follow Deputy Wall.

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Ms Kelly, Mr. Dallat and Ms McNeill and thank them for their presentation. We must determine the position on this matter. They asked whether there was an appetite for reconvening the civic forum. In the last vote held in the Assembly on this matter, a small majority was in favour. In this lies the answer. The SDLP, Sinn Féin and Independent groups want the civic forum, yet the Unionists are failing to grasp this desire, which is overwhelmingly supported by the number of submissions made to the Haass talks. In all of the committee's visits to Northern Ireland and in my visits through my political party, the one thing that the groups we met all wanted was to be able to explain their positions and to have them understood. If we stymie that, we will stymie the aim of all of this, namely, the joining together of two communities for the betterment of both and with knock-on effects for the political process.

The Good Friday Agreement was heralded worldwide and everyone was on board with it. As such, it is disappointing to see that the civic forum will not be a part of it. We must use every mechanism available to us, be it the consultative forum or the North-South Ministerial Council, to pressurise the Northern Irish system, which steadfastly refuses to address this issue. The civic forum's initiation cost £500,000 or £750,000. Compared with the costs being incurred by other ongoing problems, for example, the flag dispute, the civic forum's initiation was value for money. It gave various groups an opportunity, be they communities, political entities or sporting bodies. Each community has many different aspects. We should give them all an opportunity to participate, offer their opinions and work together to get us across the line.

I support the trend at this meeting. I will refer to my party leader, the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, the concerns and words that have been expressed and ask that we put the civic forum's reactivation on the agenda of any talks he has with the Secretary of State or Westminster.

Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Crowe will follow Senator White.

Mary White (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am delighted to see our three guests. When we discussed the Haass-O'Sullivan draft report, I spoke briefly in support of the reconvening of the civic forum. The Assembly voted in April 2013 to recall it.

In 2011, the First Minister in response to a question about the civic forum said:

There was no widespread desire for a return to the structure of the size and expense of the civic forum as previously operated. Accordingly, there has been no meetings of the civic forum during this Assembly mandate, which has also resulted in considerable savings to the public purse.

Ms Dolores Kelly:

As the Senator-----

Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As we are under pressure of time, I propose to group questions from members.

Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As stated by Deputy Wall, we have met already with many groups and propose to meet others, all of whom want an opportunity to express their views and to be listened to and involved. This is the purpose of the forum. One of the weaknesses of the peace process was the lack of civic involvement in the negotiations in that regard. I have no doubt that had the negotiations been widened out to include civic society the peace process we would have a much more inclusive process and we would be much further down the road in that regard.

We all accept that the Assembly is not seriously tackling the issues of poverty, equality, inclusivity, housing, welfare reform and so on. Everybody thought the peace process would be a new beginning in that regard. I agree that the greater the involvement of civic society the better. The naysayers will point to the cost factor and say the forum is only a talk shop. However, as elected representatives are elected by their communities they know what issues are important to them. I presume that is the only argument against it. I believe the consensus in this room, and, perhaps, across society, is that the civic forum is a good thing.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the delegation for its presentation. I do not propose to go over the ground already covered by other contributors. I find it disturbing that the Unionist veto has prevented full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. Perhaps the witnesses would comment on whether in their view the Governments are doing enough to ensure full implementation of that Agreement.

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.

Mr. John Dallat:

Members of the Oireachtas in the Republic of Ireland have every right to be interested and concerned. I am old enough to know the price paid by Ireland as a whole following the last collapse of the process in the North. I do not want to be emotive or to suggest that the dark clouds of storm are gathering again. Ms Kelly, MLA, referred to parades. I represent east Derry where the paramilitaries are re-engaging and carrying out punishment beatings in increasing numbers. They are filling the gap that is being created by the failure of the Assembly to engage the wider community. Just as we discovered in 1998, after 30 years, there is no greater weapon against violence and a breakdown in society than engagement with the widest spectrum of people.

Those who are engaged, the architects of the Good Friday Agreement, acknowledge that, which is why these structures were provided for. I am the longest serving member of the Public Accounts Committee which, like its Oireachtas equivalent, looks at the historical blunders of Departments. Would it not be great to have an advisory body that was able to identify where Departments need to improve and bring forward initiatives that address the problems in health, education and a spectrum of other services that are not functioning properly?

Ms Kelly, MLA, has covered the issue of expense. What price does one put on one person losing his or her life? What price does one put on 4,000 who lost their lives, with practically every graveyard in the North containing the remains of somebody who died as a result of failure? Members of the SDLP are not here today to preach doom and gloom. However, we are being responsible by highlighting the awful vacuum that is being created. The former Minister for Finance, Mr. Sammy Wilson, MLA, recently said in the Assembly that he would neuter every cross-Border body. That goes back to the old days of Unionism, which believed it could do it on its own. It cannot do it on its own; two parties cannot do it on their own. The five principal parties cannot do it on their own without involvement because the North is not a normal society but one that needs to be nurtured an awful lot to engage that wider community.

Along with Ms Kelly, MLA, and Ms McNeill, I am making an impassioned plea to all elected representatives, North and South as well as wider afield, to recognise that a serious vacuum is developing in the North and it is being managed by huge sums of money spent on increased policing and so on, which is not the answer. The answer lies in the wider community feeling ownership of what we have.

Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Dallat, MLA. Does anybody wish to expand on how we can move forward on the suggestions made today? I believe the SDLP representatives have reiterated what has happened in recent months. There has been an appetite in Northern Ireland to get involved in the Haass-O'Sullivan process. Without going into the nuts and bolts of that, it is significant that there were more than 600 submissions and with the vast majority from civic society it has identified an appetite for civic engagement. In private session we agreed that we would contact the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach to follow up post-Haass outlining the committee's feelings. We can include today's SDLP submission as part of that communique. We can also include the full contribution because many people made observations today. I will let the members contribute to add their own input.

I call Senator Jim D'Arcy followed by Mr. McDonnell, MLA.

Jim D'Arcy (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ms Kelly MLA referred to the Haass talks and said that retired police officers and others might be setting the agenda. Is she referring to DUP representatives or others who might not be representing the total community?

Ms Dolores Kelly:

I do not believe it is any secret that both the Unionist parties have within their ranks former rank-and-file members of the police service.

Jim D'Arcy (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are they at the Haass talks?

Ms Dolores Kelly:

They are not necessarily present at the Haass talks but we know of significant lobbying by representatives who were high-ranking officers. Some of that relates to how we deal with the past regarding improving the powers available to, for example, the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland or any subsequent new investigations unit, of compellability of former police officers having to appear. I know representatives of victims groups will appear later and the committee will hear more about that. Those kinds of what would seem very sensible provisions were being railed against in any proposals on dealing with the past and improving the powers of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.

Jim D'Arcy (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Ms Kelly, MLA, feel a civic forum would open this out?

Ms Dolores Kelly:

I am a Member for Upper Bann and represent people who live in some of the deprived loyalist estates and feel that there are certain times of the year that they cannot go to their own political representatives even over issues such as bonfires being placed too close to their homes because they find they have no voice. We would also represent a number of people in the Protestant community at welfare or housing appeals.

Jim D'Arcy (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it correct that the flags and emblems issue is the toughest issue at present? Would greater participation in a civic forum help that issue?

Ms Dolores Kelly:

The Haass-O'Sullivan proposals proposed a commission to deal with the flags. I believe it could provide that mechanism - the civic forum.

Jim D'Arcy (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That was what I was considering.

Ms Dolores Kelly:

As one of the earlier contributors said, it would give an opportunity for people to hear the other side's experiences and then to put their own case forward. It is, after all, about compromise, respect and tolerance. I believe compromise is the rallying cry for this weekend.

Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

While there may be an appetite to keep the post mortem going, it is important to use the restricted time available to us to make proposals as to how we can follow up here. I call Dr. McDonnell, MP, followed by Mr. Maskey, MLA.

Dr. Alasdair McDonnell:

It would be remiss of me to start posing questions to my colleagues. However, I wish to make a background point. While I do not want to bash anybody here today, unionism is reneging on many of the things agreed in the Good Friday Agreement. The DUP Members will individually and collectively tell us that they never signed up to the Good Friday Agreement. Many of us are suspicious that they would like to dismantle as much of it as possible. The rest of us believe the Good Friday Agreement is the only compass we have to try to sort out our society in the North. There is a need for openness and we need to allow people in to participate. The civic forum allowed the churches, business community, trade unions and some representation from each of the political parties and various others to have a status and an input. It was not nearly as powerful as the distinguished Seanad, but it was a sort of senate behind the Assembly in a greatly diluted form that allowed issues to be raised.

That is the point I make to colleagues around the table. That wheel - it was not just a cog - was taken out of the system and there is deep frustration among civic unionism that those who wish to be progressive do not have the space or opportunity to create and influence potential progress. There is deep frustration among civic unionism that the Unionist political parties did not support Dr. Haass's effort because many of the people - both individuals and groups - want to see progress and stability and a degree of prosperity emerging.

That is the nub of this. The Chairman asked for proposals. This committee is the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. The civic forum was a core wheel in the machinery of the Good Friday Agreement. The Good Friday Agreement will not function to completion and to its ultimate potential without a civic forum in some shape or form. While I would like to see it in the shape and form that existed ten or 12 years ago, even a civic forum - dare I tempt fate - in slimmed-down form would allow people to give an input.

The disillusion that is setting in because of the dysfunction around some of the politics in the North will ultimately create space, as Mr. Dallat, MLA, has rightly said for the loyalist paramilitaries who are rummaging around Coleraine. It will gradually go to the point where it could blow up again and none of us want to see that.

Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will take two final speakers because we have gone over time in a big way. Mr. Maskey and Senator Moran have indicated. Everyone else got a good hearing.

Mr. Paul Maskey:

The committee has been up on several occasions speaking to members of the loyalist community. To me, the stumbling block is with mainstream Unionism, it is not with loyalism because loyalists will tell me every day of the week, no matter how often I meet them whether in constituency offices or at different fora, that they have no representation. They have cried out in recent years for some sort of representation. I believe a civic forum would be a good way of going about that. The question is who to put the pressure on to ensure a civic forum comes to fruition. That is one of the main challenges faced by all of us in society, including this committee. I agree with the approach and we need to ensure that the Governments put as much pressure on Unionism to do that.

We should possibly write to Office of the First Minister and the Office of the Deputy First Minister as well to ask for their views and thoughts because the decision has been passed by the assembly. We should ask when the decision will be implemented and what the views are. It may come back that there is no agreement or we might not get a letter back. It might be blocked because of the veto from the DUP. I believe we need to put pressure on to see if we can get some sort of feedback and establish what that is. Then, let us take it from there. It is clear to me that when the audit is done on the Good Friday Agreement this area will definitely show up as one of the elements missing. We need to clearly decide how to get the pressure on people. It may be that we should ask the people we have engaged with from the loyalist community for their views on whether they want a civic forum. I believe that some of the people who we have met in the past from the loyalist community may want to accept that as well.

Mary Moran (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Dallat, MLA, Ms Kelly, MLA, and Ms McNeill for everything today. This has been a very good discussion. Like everyone else, I fully support the establishment of the civic forum. As Deputy Wall noted, it is part of the Good Friday Agreement. From visiting places I have found the most beneficial aspect to be engaging with the different community and religious groups of all the different sides.

It is striking how much we are suffering. It is to the detriment of this committee meeting today that there are no Unionists present and that is a major shame. The evidence exists that people want to engage and it has certainly been our experience that people want to engage. People want the opportunity. The matter of the costing, sadly, seems to be an excuse. Rather then go on - I realise we could discuss this all day - the question is how best to move on from here. Many of us on the committee are also on the North-South Inter-Parliamentary Association. Is there something that we can do through that body to move the position on or through the various other groups? Certainly, we will all be going back to our party leaders today urging for full support, which I know we have. Rather than keep talking, it is a question of what constructive actions we can use now.

Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will leave the he last word with Mr. Dallat, MLA.

Mr. John Dallat:

I usually get the last word, Chairman.

Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before that, I will have the semi-last word. Thank you for your presentation today. It is important to keep this going. There have been a few suggestions. We always have to go back to the role of this committee. This is an Oireachtas committee. It is our job to hold the Irish Government to account in respect of its responsibilities as co-guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement. That is where our focus is and where it will continue to be. It is our job to put the pressure on the Irish Government.

We are undertaking an inquiry into the Good Friday Agreement 15 or 16 years on to establish the position. This will be done with the Committee on Sovereign Matters chaired by Deputy Frank Feighan at the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. We will keep you fully informed on that. Thank you for the presentation and I will leave the last word with Mr. Dallat, MLA.

Mr. John Dallat:

To sum up, I wish to return the thanks and reiterate what Ms Kelly, MLA, said at the beginning. We must be brutally frank and honest with the Irish Government and explain that we are seriously concerned about a vacuum that is developing in the democratic process which needs to be filled. One excellent way of filling it is through the civic forum, which was a vital part of the Good Friday Agreement. It was put there because there was a recognition then, as there is now, that we need the widest possible spectrum of people involved. We must put that to the British Government because the Unionists simply will not do anything if the pressures are not there.

Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you very much. I am not going to suspend. We will go straight into the next session. I call on the members of the Justice for the Forgotten group to take their seats to make their presentation.