Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
RT HON
PETER ROBINSON
MP
27 OCTOBER 2008
Q1 Chairman: Can I formally welcome you,
First Minister. This is the first time that you have given public
oral evidence to this Committee, although we all have had the
pleasure of knowing you as a colleague at Westminster. The first
happy duty is to congratulate you on assuming the role of First
Minister and to thank you for coming before the Committee. We
are very sorry indeed that the deputy First Minister is not with
you. We did, of course, invite you both and we hope that on subsequent
occasions he will be able to be with you. This is the first such
session that we have had. Of course, you took office as First
Minister in June this year and, having formed the new Executive
in June, we have had a long period since then where that new Executive
has not had a chance to meet. Would you like to say a word or
two about that and what progress has been held up by this extraordinary
failure of the Executive to meet, which is giving great concern
throughout the United Kingdom to all of those people who are concerned
about Northern Ireland and who rejoiced last year when the power
sharing Executive was established?
Mr Robinson: Sir Patrick, first
of all, thank you for your welcome and kind remarks. I am delighted
that the Committee is in Northern Ireland today and that you have
given me the opportunity to speak with you. I notice the Committee
is broken down with the Northern Ireland representatives and those
who come from Northern Ireland on one side and the others elsewhere.
Q2 Chairman: A pure accident!
Mr Robinson: I hope that we manage
to win some of them over as time goes on. You are right to draw
attention to the issue that is probably uppermost in the public
mind at the present time, and that is the failure of the Executive
to meet, although I have to say that the ministers from the Ulster
Unionist Party, the SDLP and the DUP all want the Executive to
meet. Indeed, to some extent, they have been meeting privately
to try to further issues which are their joint ministerial responsibility
so that the harm that might be caused to the wider population
is to some extent curtailed. However, it falls far short of what
is required by our Ministerial Code for us to carry out these
duties. They are political duties, but also legal responsibilities
that we have. As the First Minister I have put forward a series
of proposals as to the basis upon which the Executive could meet.
I have approved the backlog of papers that were in office when
I was appointed as First Minister and now almost 30 papers have
been approved by me for consideration by the Executive, but in
spite of that the deputy First Minister has not agreed to the
calling of an Executive meeting. The first reason given was that
the agenda was one which was somehow the agenda of the DUP and
that was not a possible way to go forward and until there was
an agreeable agenda we could not move forward. First of all, I
would point out that these are ministerial papers coming from
every government department, including the Sinn Féin, SDLP
and Ulster Unionist departments, so there is nothing by way of
a DUP agenda contained in the subjects that will be discussed
by the Executive. To ensure that there was no question about the
fairness of the agenda, I made it very clear that I was happy
to meet without an agenda where every minister could come and
bring their own issues to the table, that nothing would be excluded
in terms of the issues that the Executive could consider, but
when that was offered I was then told that there had to be an
agreed agenda. However, a letter has been exchanged between the
deputy First Minister and myself which included a number of items
which the deputy First Minister had cleared by way of Executive
papers, papers which I had already cleared and, therefore, I think
we can safely say were agreed papers, yet again a meeting was
not permitted on the basis of those papers which were agreed.
That frustrates the business of the Executive if it is not to
be called except some outside party political agenda issue is
cleared up. Of course, the issue of policing and justice, which
is largely assumed to be the reason for the delay, is not an issue
for the Executive to decide; it is a matter in the first instance
for the deputy First Minister and myself to agree how we move
forward and for the Assembly to then support or otherwise the
proposals they might put.
Q3 Chairman: It has been said that
you and the deputy First Minister had, indeed, agreed on the mechanics
of that but somehow that has been lost. Could you just enlighten
us and tell us precisely what the position is and your relations
with the deputy First Minister, and it is a great pity he is not
here to answer these questions, on this issue of policing and
justice? Is the public perception that an agreement had been made
but that the DUP had then become obdurate false?
Mr Robinson: I will certainly
respond to the questions on policing and justice, but perhaps
by first of all putting in the caveat that the outcome agreement
on policing and justice should have nothing to do with the calling
of an Executive meeting; executive meetings are a legal responsibility
we have. We are required to do the business of government and
if we have any thoughts for the interests of the people of Northern
Ireland we would be doing that, and that is what I want to see
happen. As far as policing and justice is concerned, I think I
would have to say I had high hopes as we broke up for the summer
that we were moving in the right direction on policing and justice.
The deputy First Minister and I had agreed on the context within
which policing and justice powers could be devolved to Northern
Ireland and we had agreed the mechanism that would be used to
reach further agreements. On 28 July the two of us wrote to the
Chairman of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, which
is a committee set up by the Assembly to look at further developments
of the institutions of Northern Ireland, and we felt it appropriate,
as it had already considered policing and justice at an earlier
stage, that it was the right vehicle to take the issue forward,
although both the deputy First Minister and I made it clear that
where we could reach further agreements we would feed them into
the work of the committee. More importantly, in the letter of
28 July we set the context for policing and justice in that we
indicated there should be just one department dealing with those
issues and there should be just one minister responsible for that
department and that minister at all times would be elected by
the Assembly in a way that ensured cross-community support. Those
are the precise terms of the letter that we sent. Both of our
parties indicated that to make matters easier in the first instance
initially neither of our parties would nominate anybody for that
post, which largely meant that the Justice Minister would come
from the ranks either of the Ulster Unionist Party, the SDLP,
the Alliance Party or, indeed, for that matter Independent, but
it would not be from our two parties. To some extent I had assumed
that we would move forward on the basis that the Assembly and
Executive Review Committee would agree those issues, would look
at the other issues relating to the modalities, would discuss
the issue of the finances for policing and justice, a very important
issue indeed, and that they would then bring a report to the Assembly.
We had agreed the route and we had agreed the shape of how we
might move forward. However, during the course of the summer there
were some unhelpful remarks being made by some politicians, but
most keenly by the leader in the Dáil party of Sinn Féin
who at a Republican commemoration service indicated that unless
things moved at their pace and to their liking they would withdraw
their ministers and collapse the Assembly. That, of course, took
the issue to another level entirely. It was indicating that we
were not going to proceed on the basis of having ownership for
everybody in Northern Ireland of policing and justice, that it
was to be seen as a Sinn Féin demand and it would be done
in their way and in their time. That set us back very considerably
and it was a most unhelpful intervention. Nonetheless, we have
continued to work through some of the outstanding issues. We have
not agreed any outcome, but I felt certainly until the beginning
of last week that we were making progress, I could see the shape
of how we might be able to move forward. If we had been meeting
a week ago I think I would have probably been speaking to you
in fairly optimistic terms but, regrettably, during the intervening
period representatives of Sinn Féin of the Assembly and
Executive Review Committee have given what can only be described
as a distortion in their interpretation of the letter of 28 July
where they have judged that the use of the term "elected
at all times" really means elected only once. I do not think
that we can strangle the English language to the extent of getting
that interpretation out of it. If agreements that have already
been reached are being clawed back or taken off the table then
it makes it much more difficult for us to move forward. There
is a frustration out there in the general community. I do not
believe that everything should be held back until we have resolved
the issue of policing and justice. We should be moving forward
to resolve not just this issue but there are a number of outstanding
issues. We should be moving forward as fast as we can with all
of these matters, but we should not be holding back our legal
responsibility and duty as ministers to carry out our work.
Q4 Chairman: You make that very clear.
You say that last week had you been appearing before us you would
have been tolerably optimistic. Do I infer from that remark that
you are now pessimistic? What, apart from the issues you have
just alluded to, induces that pessimism?
Mr Robinson: The two issues that
have caused me to be much more pessimistic are, first of all,
the retreat by Sinn Féin on the agreement of 28 July, but
also the reaction of Sinn Féin to the Homecoming Parade
of our troops from Afghanistan and Iraq. I think it is hard for
people to envisage how we can devolve powers for policing and
justice when one of the parties in the Assembly behaves in such
a reckless way as Sinn Féin are proposing to do on Sunday
2 November. It indicates that there are people certainly within
Sinn Féin, if not the organisation as a whole, who have
not pulled themselves into the new era, who do not give respect
to the other tradition and way of life, who are not prepared to
allow people to welcome back the people from our community who
have put their lives in harm's way and who, thankfully, are coming
back and are able to parade in Northern Ireland.
Chairman: Thank you very much for that.
Q5 Kate Hoey: First Minister, I do
not want to go back on what you have said on that issue, but I
would like to go back to the question of the Executive not meeting.
Clearly ministers are still working, quite a lot of government
business is still getting through, but the average person in Northern
Ireland at the moment must be concerned that there are some things
that should be happening that are not. Could you take us through
the most crucial things that you are not being able to do collectively
as a Northern Ireland Government which would help the people of
Northern Ireland precisely because of the Sinn Féin intransigence?
Mr Robinson: All Executive ministers
are doing a full range of their departmental duties with one exception,
and that is going to an Executive meeting. Ministers are still
carrying out their functions in terms of taking decisions on matters
based on existing policy within the departments, based on existing
legislation and based on existing financial allocations. Within
those parameters the ministers are competent to take whatever
decisions they like and are doing so. All of our government departments
are operating fully in all of those aspects. What they cannot
do under the present circumstances is when you come to wanting
to change policy, to bring new initiatives in, particularly if
they are novel, contentious or cross-cutting, the support of the
Executive as a whole is required for that and if issues are cross-cutting
then very clearly the forum where best you will be able, indeed
where you are required legally, to have agreement is the Executive
itself. I suppose the best example of that would be the measures
that many of us would like to take in relation to dealing with
the hardship that people are feeling as a result of the economic
downturn. Here is a matter where a number of government departments
have indicated that there are steps they would like to take which
you would want to put into a package, a package perhaps not entirely
dissimilar from that which was produced in Scotland or Wales,
but a package which will be needed to deal with issues like fuel
poverty. DETI have already put proposals forward in terms of how
they deal with small and medium-sized businesses, all of those
kinds of issues which ministers have views on and which they would
want to have formed into a package and agreed by the Executive.
The three parties, the Ulster Unionist Party, the SDLP and the
DUP, have been meeting and dealing with a package but there is
the requirement for that to be agreed and the Executive is the
obvious place for us to do that, otherwise we stretch the use
of a procedure known as "urgent procedure" where ministers
can ask for their papers to be approved in written form in the
absence of an Executive meeting if an Executive meeting is not
taking place that can deal with it.
Q6 Chairman: Have you attempted to
have discussions with Sinn Féin on that package?
Mr Robinson: The deputy First
Minister and I have had a series of meetings with stakeholders.
We have met with the construction industry, the business community,
the energy regulator and the energy companies. We have had meetings
with the banks and the lending institutions. Together we have
had a wide range of meetings. We are well-informed of the steps
that various people within the stakeholder group feel that we
should take, and we will all have seen papers coming in from ministers,
but without the Executive meeting taking place it is not possible
for us to have the discussion.
Q7 Chairman: In those meetings that
you and the deputy First Minister have had with these various
important individuals and groups, have you and he seen eye-to-eye?
Have you, as it were, spoken with one voice?
Mr Robinson: We have been on the
same page entirely in terms of how we should respond to these
issues. That is what perhaps makes it even more frustrating, that
this is not an issue that is likely to tear the Executive apart,
this is an issue where I would have hoped that the Executive would
have been wanting to move forward together and to show an interest
in the concerns of the general community and have matters resolved.
I do not think there is any difference between how the deputy
First Minister and I would approach these matters. Indeed, in
our own discussions during the course of these meetings we were
very much on the same page.
Q8 Chairman: And your personal relationship
remains amicable?
Mr Robinson: Oh, yes. We are still
dealing with all of the business that we have to without rancour
but, I suppose, with increasing frustration perhaps on both sides.
Q9 Chairman: Without rancour and
without chuckles?
Mr Robinson: We are there to do
business in a professional and businesslike way and I think we
are both signed up to do that.
Q10 Dr McDonnell: First Minister,
I would like to come back to your earlier introductory remarks.
Not just for my own sake but for the sake of other colleagues,
I would like to ask is the devolution of policing and justice
now the only reason for the Executive's difficulties in meeting?
I think there is an implication that other reasons have come about
since the beginning of the summer and I just wondered if you have
any comment on that. If policing and justice were sorted out in
the morning, would everything be all right?
Mr Robinson: I have my suspicions
whether it would, though, like you, I have noted a change in the
terminology being used by some. While the only issues of substance
that are being discussed with us, 95% of those discussions that
we would have on outstanding issues would be on the issue of policing
and justice, there is the indication, I suspect because maybe
within the Nationalist community there is not the same resonance
on the issue of policing and justice as some people would like
there to be, they are now characterising the difficulty as being
one of a lack of partnership or respect. That is something that
unless they were to define it we could not respond to, save to
say that the best example that you could have of partnership would
be the Executive meeting.
Q11 Lady Hermon: First Minister,
if the Secretary of State or the Northern Ireland Office were
to be listening to this public session at Westminster, is there
anything that the Secretary of State has done to help progress
within the Executive, or is there anything that the Secretary
of State or, indeed, the Prime Minister could do to actually help
break the logjam within the Executive?
Mr Robinson: Chairman, I hope
the Secretary of State is listening. I am sure he is.
Q12 Chairman: He is hanging on every
word!
Mr Robinson: I think the Secretary
of State, very rightly, would wish that the parties in Northern
Ireland would resolve these difficulties themselves. It is my
view that they should. I do not like circumstances where we have
to lean on others to resolve difficulties. If we get into the
pattern of doing that, as has been the case in the past, we will
do it for all time. I think the Secretary of State would certainly
want to see whether the parties can resolve these matters themselves.
I have to say, the longer it goes on and the longer we appear
to be dysfunctional, the more likely it is that the Secretary
of State would be asked to intervene and I accept that probably
would be his disposition, although not his desire. However, the
Secretary of State is bound by an agreement that he entered into
at St Andrew's which indicated that the default by any one party
to agreements that they reached should not be allowed to punish
the rest. That is in the St Andrew's Agreement and it is very
clear that there was a signing up to forming a government, it
is very clear that we all took a pledge of office, we are all
bound by a Ministerial Code and that requires the Executive to
meet. At this moment in time Sinn Féin are denying the
Executive its ability to meet and that, in my view, can be defined
as a default that the Secretary of State should respond to under
the terms of the St Andrew's Agreement. There are two further
actions which can be taken, and they can be taken by me or they
can be taken by anybody else in our society in Northern Ireland.
The first of those actions would be to go to the courts. I have
no doubt what the judgment of the courts would be if this issue
was to go before the courts. The reason I am in no doubt as to
what the courts would say is that the courts have already said
it in a similar case; maybe a similar but less compelling case
even than the one that now exists. The deputy First Minister and
one of his colleagues took the former First Minister to court
some time ago on the basis of a non-meeting of the North-South
Ministerial Council. I think we can see from the judgment that
was given then that the court ruled that no extraneous issue,
no matter how strongly felt by the individual, could justify not
doing what was a legal requirement to have a meeting. If we took
the issue to court I have a fair idea what the court would say.
Q13 Lady Hermon: But you are not
minded to take it to court?
Mr Robinson: I am not yet minded
to take it to the court because I think if there is the prospect
of us resolving these issues it is far better we resolve them
than take them into that arena. As a general rule, I do not believe
that we should be going to the courts to resolve political problems,
but have no doubt what the courts would rule if they were to be
consistent with the previous ruling. The other step we have is
to go to the IMC. The IMC were given a role in terms of any breach
by parties in their responsibilities. We could take that route
as well. I suppose my response to that is the same as to the last
one, that if there is a possibility of resolving matters through
discussion that is the best way to go forward.
Q14 Chairman: How long are you going
to give it?
Mr Robinson: I am always very
reluctant to get into these questions about timescale, as everybody
knows. I am condition-led in my approach to these matters. If
I think there is a possibility of resolving these issues without
taking recourse to the law or to other bodies then that is the
best way to go forward.
Q15 Chairman: If you could come to
agreement, if you could, as it were, revive the letter of 28 July
to which you have referred, roughly how long would it take, and
I am not asking you for a specific time, that would be ridiculous,
to have the devolution brought into effect?
Mr Robinson: If we were back at
that stage of the 28 July letter then we would be in the business
of trying to resolve the other modality issues. Those would be
issues in terms of the accountability of the Justice Minister,
financial issues, all of those other issues. It is very difficult
to put a timeframe as to how long it might take to do that. Committees,
and committees will be taking the bulk of the work in this area
of activity, normally set their own work plans and set out what
they will be doing at various meetings or in the period in front
of them. The committees would be the people that would set that
timeframe and certainly we would not intervene in terms of trying
to dictate to them. There are set periods of time that it requires
for legislation to go through, both at Westminster and here in
the Assembly, and then there is the issue of ensuring that we
have the confidence of the community, so there is a consultation
process required as well. I suppose the answer to your question
is as expeditiously as is possible and as soon as is practicable.
Q16 Christopher Fraser: Two of the
points I was going to make have just been put but, that aside,
you made a point earlier about the economy here and people's opinion
about where it is going and what is happening. We have been told
on at least one occasion that business confidence and inward investment
would be improved if the devolution of policing came to the Province.
Is that really what businesses are thinking here given the economic
downturn and the concerns they truly have?
Mr Robinson: I do not think that
business is saying that policing and justice being devolved would
make all the difference in the decisions that we have to take.
I think what they are saying is that policing and justice is one
of the issues that is at the heart of the difference between the
parties in Northern Ireland and the resolution of that and a stable
political environment helps us in terms of encouraging business
to come to Northern Ireland. We all put ourselves forward when
we had the Northern Ireland-United States Investment Conference
in indicating how well we were moving forward and then we came
out of the other side of that and one of the parties said, "Well,
you might be moving forward but you are not going to be moving
forward in the Executive because we are not going to call it".
It undermines all of the work that we did during the period of
the Investment Conference. It is political stability that is needed
to encourage business, not any particular aspect of political
decisions.
Q17 Christopher Fraser: Is that particular
point you make about stability understood by all the parties involved
in this at the moment?
Mr Robinson: I do not think that
anybody could miss that point, it is self-evident. We all recognise
that one of the selling points that we had during our Investment
Conference, and indeed which the deputy First Minister and I,
and indeed my predecessor, Dr Paisley, when we were going outside
of Northern Ireland to encourage business, was to say, "We
have got a community that has been held back for a very significant
period of time because of division and conflict, we are through
that, we have now got political stability, come to Northern Ireland".
We were selling it as an attribute for Northern Ireland so it
is very clear that the reverse is also true, if there is instability
it impacts on investment and job opportunities.
Q18 Lady Hermon: First Minister,
could I just have clarification on one small issue. There is considerable
speculation that we will not see the devolution of policing and
justice before the European Parliament election next June or the
DUP not agreeing to the devolution of policing and justice. Could
I ask you as both the leader of the DUP and as First Minister,
is that an accurate assessment?
Mr Robinson: The juxtaposition
of that or any other election is unimportant in terms of the issues
that have to be resolved.
Q19 Lady Hermon: Unimportant?
Mr Robinson: Unimportant, yes.
The issue for us is one of community confidence. I have said often
if the structures have been agreed between us, if we have assessed
that the community confidence is there, devolution of policing
and justice would take place just as soon as the legislation could
go through to allow it to happen, but we are undermining the confidence
in our ability to deal with policing and justice by not having
an Executive which is operating and giving the appearance of dysfunctionality.
|
