Interesting partners for tug of war over committee
What the BBC’s Martina Purdy has described as a behind the scenes tug-of-war over a cross-party committee on the restoration of devolution, as proposed by the UUP/PUP Assembly Group leader Reg Empey, emerged onto the floor of the House of Commons during Northern Ireland Questions today[temporary link], and Secretary of State for Wales and Northern Ireland Peter Hain seems to want a liitle more time than had previously been suggested would be needed[subs req] – “Mr Hain will announce the creation of the committee by Friday, a Northern Ireland Office (NIO) spokesman said yesterday[Tuesday]” – It’s also worth noting who’s tugging from which side.As the Irish Times reported this morning[subs req] -
Mr Hain will announce the creation of the committee by Friday, a Northern Ireland Office (NIO) spokesman said yesterday, notwithstanding warnings yesterday and on Monday by DUP leader the Rev Ian Paisley that he would not sit on such a body as it would involve face-to-face engagement with Sinn Féin on UK constitutional matters.[added emphasis]
During NI Questions the SDLP MP Eddie McGrady queried such a committee’s relevance and suggested that it would reduce the importance of the debates in the [temporary] assembly even further -
Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down) (SDLP): May I refer the Secretary of State to his statement that he would make a further proclamation this week about creating a restoration committee for Northern Ireland, which he hopes that the party leaders will attend? Does not he believe that that might frustrate the work of the Assembly, the primary purpose of which is to restore Executive functions? What gives him the hope that, for example, the party leaders, who will not come together in the Assembly, will do so outside it in a restoration committee? Does not that make the shadow Assembly of even less substance by transferring its primary function outside that body?
Mr. Hain: I am giving further consideration to representations from all the parties, including the hon. Gentleman’s, on the proposal for a committee to prepare for restored government. I am listening carefully to what people are saying, and there is a case for it. I know that he will understand that the proposal made by Sir Reg Empey of the Ulster Unionist party is not a model that I favour and that it has not found favour with the other parties. We must continue the consultations until I am in a position to move forward.[added emphasis]
Tugging the same way, although perhaps for different reasons, was the DUP leader Ian Paisley -
Rev. Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP): Can the Secretary of State give me a categorical assurance that no committee from anywhere will be set up to conduct the negotiations? The negotiations were promised between the Government and the parties and there cannot be another set of negotiations running alongside them. We know that the Prime Minister and the Minister are coming to talk to us. Will the Secretary of State assure me that no committee with power to negotiate will be set up? He knows the attitude of the Democratic Unionist party to that. We would not take part in any such committee. Hon. Members should be reminded that Sinn Fein is currently boycotting the Assembly’s public meetings.
Mr. Hain: I believe that Sinn Fein should be at the Assembly’s public sittings along with all the other parties. I am consulting the right hon. Gentleman’s party along with the others about the proposal for a committee to prepare for restored government. I do not intend to give it any power to negotiate. I could neither do that nor force that on anyone. However, it would be helpful if there were a forum in which issues could be identified by all the parties. Negotiations will obviously take place with the Governments but there is an advantage to everyone seeing what is on the table before they take place.
And on the side of those who want the committee to be put in place is, naturally enough, the UUP leader Reg Empey -
The UUP’s Sir Reg Empey said he hoped the assembly would be able to debate a motion calling for the establishment of a committee for the restoration of devolution.
“What we are asking the secretary of state to do is to allow a motion on the order paper for our next business to appoint a committee on the restoration of devolution,” he said.
“The general public would at least know that we were actually engaged in serious business.”
Tugging with them though is Sinn Féin, with certain conditions for the committee’s membership, as the SF president Gerry Adams made clear on Monday -
Gerry Adams said afterwards such a committee would only be valuable if it featured the leaders of the main Northern Ireland party.
“It has to be leadership led,” the Sinn Fein leader said.
“There is no point having a small group meeting in this building, sitting twiddling thumbs.
“What we are looking for is a committee or series of committees on the restoration of devolution but it has to be leadership led.”
It’s also worth noting that rather than debating the formation of the committee in the [temporary] assembly, we have the various parties consulting, behind closed doors, with the Secretary of State for Wales and Northern Ireland.. So it goes.
from reading Purdy’s orginal piece at the start of this blog there is clearly at the very least a difference of tactics betwen Robinson and Paisley
The DUP has become what the “old” UUP were. An inherently unstable coalition of disparate factions.
Prepare for a huge realignment of unionism when the old man dies.
Prepare for a huge realignment of unionism when the old man dies
Can we wait that long, the future of unionism is being held to ransom by an old man who got into the ‘driving seat’ by promising a Fair Deal but seems to be incapable or unwilling to bring it about in an effort to save face
You know, sometimes I get the distinct impression that some commenters just ignore what’s actually been written [and linked] in order to pursue their own agendas…
pete,
you’re being (unusually ) very vague.
What do you mean by some commentators?
The links pointed out some major differences between Paisley’s “no, no, no, ” and Robinson’s more pragmatic approach.
As a side, although not unrelated issue, do you think baby doc is going to become leader after the old man dies?
I think not!
joe Canuck
The article at the link referred to earlier was written before the questions in the Commons today.
Probably better to take the question, by Paisley, as a guide rather than any interpretation of previous comments, Adams’ comments are equally revealing btw.. and Hain’s dallying on the committee details reveals a deeper problem than whether the DUP will sign on to that committee..
..as the other links also reveal.
The DUP certainly has two distinct factions…
Those that advocate a more “modern” approach to unionist politics and the “never never never” camp of Dr Paisley.
The only reason the party is still seemingly together is because of the authoritarian approach by Paisley. It’s his party, he founded it and he knows whats best! It’s a very unhealthy approach to be honest.
As has been written elsewhere on slugger. Robinson really is Paisleys “gimp”.
yes pete
But I’m still somewhat confused as to what your comment “own agendas” meant. I assume you were referring to me.
I have no agenda.
I left N.I. 25 years ago ago because of my intense frustration at both communities not being able to compromise on the simplest of issues and to make it an all-inclusive society where everyone could prosper.
I didn’t want my children growing up there.
However, i’m still an optimist and believe (hope) that, soon, the pragmatists will work something out.
Regards
Ach dont be that hopeful Joe, we arent.
Ah missfitz
If i wasn’t married I’d probably come back to Ireland and start wooing you.
i know you have some hope left inside you.
Oh, I never thought about using Slugger as a dating site…. (light bulb goes off over head)
Thank you for that Joe, and sure dont be worried about the wife, it can be our little secret
Dear God, irrespective of what hook the thread is hung upon, we can rely on the CunningPlan House typing pool (tiny, unionist et al)to tell us about DUP splits and factions.
Guys, Empey f**ked up his own Devolution Committee proposals when he did the deal with Ervine. Plus, it now looks like the so-called “watertight” support from the Speaker’s office on the UUPAG is leaking away.
And what’s this I hear about a meeting tonight in downtown Belfast attended by around 30 or so seriously pi**ed off UUP members? Someone in HQ should be booking a venue for a UUC get-together in the next few weeks. Finance, staff and Ervine could all be on the agenda from what my sources tell me.
Sir Empty should have honoured his leadership pledge and dumped the wasters and delusionals.
BooBoo