10/12/2012 Stormont Today

Hello and welcome to Stormont Today. There were strong words of

condemnation from all sides for the week of violence that followed

Belfast City Council's decision to fly the union flag on designated

days. The violence we have seen has been

orchestrated. This raises questions about the future intentions of

those who once professed to support the peace process.

The First Minister, Peter Robinson, recognised that people have the

right to peaceful protest, but not the right to violence.

Let's be clear - there's no right to attack police of council staff.

There's no right to threaten or intimidate. There's no right to be

in danger, harm or kill. There's no right to kill representatives

because you don't agree with their views.

And joining me with her analysis is our political correspondent,

Martina Purdy. So, MLAs have unanimously backed a

motion condemning last week's violence and intimidation over

Belfast City Council's decision on flying the union flag. There have

been protests across Northern Ireland against the decision. An

Alliance Party office was destroyed in Carrickfergus, the homes of

several councillors were attacked, and the party's deputy leader,

Naomi Long, received a death threat on Friday morning. The Deputy First

Minister said the recent violence was orchestrated, and added that

political parties must play a central part in healing divisions,

not raising tensions. We have a responsibility tab clear

in our message of condemnation of the recent lawlessness and violence

on the streets. Attacks on cows will start and police officers, too.

This is to be condemned in the strongest terms. I am, however,

optimistic that our message today in condemning the violence for --

and supporting those who have been intimidated will be heard loud and

clear. We must remain resolute and clear. We must remain resolute and

clear. We must remain resolute and not allow the recent events to

undermine the agreements we have made over the past number of years.

We have a responsibility took -- to give leadership, especially at

times like this. The violence and intimidation is unacceptable. We

must all stand behind that message. The intimidation and threats

The intimidation and threats against an MP, councillors and

others are the work of those who refuse to accept democracy. Those

elements that have issued the flats -- threats should lift them. The

violence we have seen has been orchestrated. This raises many

serious questions about the future intention of those who once

professed to support the peace process.

We condemn utterly what happened last week. That is the easy part.

The challenge, and it is a challenge for every party in this

house, is out to acknowledge what, last week, was all about. There was

a vote to stop flying the flag except on a few days of the year.

And yes, it was a democratic vote, and we accept that. But on another

level, it has been received as part of a process described by some as a

party political victory, which, of course, so Jess winners and losers.

-- suggests. I think that some of those who took to the streets saw

themselves as the uses and not -- as losers, and not for the first

time. We must do more than just condemn.

We must tell the truth, however difficult that might be. The

founding document of this Assembly describes respect as the basis of

relationships within Northern Ireland. The fact is that the

campaign of intimidation started before the violence erupted. That

campaign must be condemned. Mutual respect requires there should be no

campaigns to coerce or erode any body's feelings of Britishness or

Irish nurse. -- Irish heritage. Everybody should be accepted as

Irish or British or both. There is no flag accepted as such by all our

people. We are signed up to an agreement which states that we

cannot force any section of our people to accept a flag of our

choice. That is the basis, and the only basis, on which we can sort

this problem out. There can be no cherry-picking. We can't pick the

bit of the Good Friday Agreement saying that Northern Ireland is

part of the UK and overlook the bit reflecting respect over Britishness

There has been contrast between those who claim to protect the

Union flag and democracy. A contrast between the cowardice of

people covering their faces with masks, and the dignity of their

elected representatives under attack. Contrast between the

response when the same decision was taken by other Unionist councils at

other times, and the effect that whooping up tensions had on this

occasion. There are two issues that our community has to face up to.

Where do we stand on democracy? What are we going to Dubai to

accommodate different allegiances into a shared future? It is

striking that the motion we tabled last Thursday differs from today's

in the respect that... It is beyond me why all parties to not sign up

to those words. Any decision taken by a democratically elected body is

democratic. Any democratic decision is, as a result, legitimate. That

is the essence of democracy. If we refuse to accept that, why bother

with democracy? How do we tell the people who rioted that they were

wrong to do so? How do we tell dissident republicans that

democracy is the only route to the future? The principle of consent...

If you want Northern Ireland's present and future to be ruled by

democracy, you have to accept every democratic decision, even those

that you perceive to affect your sense of identity.

It was a seminal moment when the Union Flag was torn down from the

civic building in our capital city. That was not an isolated assault on

our Britishness. It was a new high point in insult and Republican

action in an orchestrated process. It began in the Belfast Agreement.

It has touched a nerve of many people frustrated by a treadmill of

concessions. Just as intended by the Belfast Agreement, it, of

course, was and is designed to trundle ass out of the UK, to ease

us and infuse us into end -- and All Ireland, and at every step

requires dilution of our Britishness. Torture is Sinn Fein's

new theatre of war. -- culture. We must be mindful of the language

we use in political debate. However, on Wednesday evening, when I got

the word that the homes of councillors were attacked, I became

acutely aware of the vulnerability of my own family. For the first

time in my political career, I felt that I had to watch what I say for

fear that my family could face a similar attack.

To those who turned their process into violence, let me say

categorically that you are wrong. Despite your best efforts, the

moral high ground remains with those of participating in lawful,

peaceful protests. Scenes of uncontrollable anger brought

disgrace and turned legitimate revulsion into unacceptable

violence, doing no service whatsoever to the British culture

under pressure. People are entitled to make their

views known. Doing so is an integral part of the democratic

process. Democracy has not conducted in secret. People are

entitled to have opinions and they are entitled to express them. I

will defend their right to influence decisions and the right

to peaceful protest if they don't agree with the decisions. The right

to protest is as fundamental to the democratic process as the right to

vote. But let's declare - but there is no right to attack police

officers or council staff. There's no right to destroy property.

There's no right to threaten or intimidate. There's no right to

endanger life, Hamm, inter-war kill. There's no right to attack elected

representatives. I know what it is like to get a knock on the door and

be told by the police that somebody is trying to kill me. I received

that visit many times. Many people in this house will have received

the same kind of visitor. I have to say that having received that kind

of visit, I know perhaps more than many the impact that it has on a

family and personal life. Those of us who have been through it, more

than any, know what it is like. We stand side-by-side with those who

are under threat today. The First Minister ending today's

debate. But it's not over yet, and while there's been more unrest this

evening, tomorrow the flags issue is up for more discussion here at

Stormont. The DUP is asking the Assembly Commission to review the

flags policy here with a view to increasing the number of days the

Union flag flies. With me now is our political correspondent,

Martina Purdy. What is likely to happen with this

DUP motion? It is too early to say. It is a

fluid situation. The DUP's representative on the Commission

filed a motion asking for the Assembly commission, which is

responsible for the building, to review its flags policy with a view

to increasing the number of flag days we have here. As numbers stand,

the Assembly commission is not like the Assembly chamber, where

nationalists and Unionists can be to each other. It is basically one

MLA, one fruit. If it came to a straight vote, they could push it

through. This evening, Peter Robinson met with Mike Nesbitt, the

Ulster Unionist leader. They discussed the issue for around an

hour, and they said they would bring forward to and proposals.

Are the Unionists are united on this?

The tactics and strategy are still being worked out. The DUP would

need the Unionists to support them. Can Mike Nesbitt count on all his

MLAs not to rebel? That is a question for us. Mike Nesbitt, I

spoke to him at the weekend and he said he supports a notion of more

flag days. He pointed out that they started having 17 designated days,

but with the death of Princess Margaret and the Queen Mother,

there's now 15. He wants things to come down. Also, he would not

specify how many days he think the flag should fly. Most people

Sinn Fein haven't come back with a definitive statement on their

position. The SDLP have met this evening and they issued a statement

saying they are not happy at the pre-emptive way the DUP has dealt

with this. They feel they would not be able to support the motion to

review flags, they would argue that an assessment is required. The

Alliance Party has similar concerns. They could be a procedural issue to

delay this. If the SDLP and Sinn Fein refused to turn up to the

Assembly commission, there would not be a qualm. That is something

that is being looked at. Also whispers that the SDLP may have

written to the First Minister protesting. It is possible that in

the medium term we may see more designated days? The Unionists may

have a reasonable case in terms of increasing the number a flag days

given that they have shrunk in the past decade and nationalists have

said they can see there could be more flag days. A small number of

days, nothing like 365. And would Unionists ask for sitting days?

Some of the Ellesse says -- MLAs, while they would be opened this

case, they are upset at the way it has been handled and they don't

want to respond in the immediate climate because they don't want to

respond to what they say are bully- boy tactics. When tempers cool in

the new year, progress could be made, but I don't think it will be

done overnight. Thank you. Father two many MLAs instalment?

The committee tasked with considering reform has tentatively

backed the creation of a new Department for the economy. There

are also suggestions for agriculture to take on the

environment and a new department for Oban and social development.

This is the chair of the Assembly. Although the committee did not

reach consensus on how many departments there should be, the

report outlines five areas where the committee agreed there was some

commonality. With regard to how departments could be restructured.

As indicated in Assembly research papers, the task of reorganising

government departments is typically regarded as an Executive function.

Fair for the committee regarded its role as advisory in this respect

rather than prescriptive. The report clearly states that the five

areas of commonality do not represent an exhaustive list of

broad reorganisations and can't therefore be taken as a set of

recommendations. However, as with the objectives and to inform any

future reorganisation, the committee considers that the areas

of commonality said Hutton Report can be used to directly inform any

future reorganisation of Northern Ireland. -- one minute they want to

be in opposition and the other they don't. They want to stay in the

Executive. It is time for them to declare their hand. The same with

the SDLP. Their decision will impact on any final Configuration.

Order. I will repeat that because the member for the SDLP was

laughing so loudly. It was the most frustrating report to be party to

preparation of, largely because there was very little willingness

on behalf of the significant party in the house to engage in any

serious way in any aspect of debate around this. I thank the man before

giving way. I would encourage him, maybe he was going to be very

precise rather than say a very major party. Could he be as precise

-- could he be precise? I will leave Mr Campbell to his own

precision. Sinn Fein were the party who failed to make a substantial

and response to the consultation process that kicks off each one of

these periods of internal debate. People were asked to put forward

their proposals. Time after time after time after time after endless

time, we put forward our proposals. I think pointing the finger across

the chamber is very unparliamentary. I think all members do realise that

this subject has been raised before and it is not acceptable to point

fingers. I would ask the member to continue with his speech. One party

didn't, Sinn Fein. Sinn Fein didn't. The DUP's Gregory Campbell.

Now, are human rights in Northern Ireland being sufficiently

protected? Or are issues like welfare reform, violence and

intimidation affecting people's lives? With me is Professor Michael

O'Flaherty from the Human Rights Commission. Good evening. The

commission published its first annual human rights statement today.

Is that a time for optimism or pessimism? It is a very important

day for us. We launched the annual statement in the presence at

Stormont of the representatives of the five main parties and in the

statement we gave a health check of the situation a few rights in

Northern Ireland. There are problems. We know what is happening

on the streets tonight. We know about the dreadful state of the

economy, the knock-on impact for people. What is less well-known are

the achievement. We want to draw attention to the way in which the

Executive is standing up for human rights. The way in which her left

end VFM has dealt with historic child abuse. The work of the

minister for justice within prisons. Also to try to have less women

locked up for petty crime. The Health Minister, with new

regulations to deal with the nursing home sector, triggered by a

report of ours. These are achievements. The Assembly's work

on human rights trafficking is best practice internationally, as is the

establishment of an at hoc committee for that will for reform

bill. That is novel and important. It will make a difference in the

long run. It is good that there are positive things to note and

celebrate, but it is also important to look at what can be improved in

the months and years ahead. Clearly a lot of people will be thinking of

the murder of the prison officer David black last month and we've

seen considerable dissident republican activity in love the

last month of up strong echoes of the past for a lot of people in

Northern Ireland who lived through the worst of the Troubles.

Absolutely and the Commission have been forthright in saying that.

When dissidents or when private agents perform unacceptable acts of

this nature, it is important that our commissioned stands up and says

that. As well as holding the state to account for its own

responsibilities and duties. What is crucial is to base our human

rights work on the international standards that the UK has committed

itself to. If we say -- stay strongly locked within law we will

see progress. You also say that there's a challenge, an outstanding

challenge of dealing with the past. Are we being held in a state of

suspended animation by the failure of politicians to fully deal with

that? That is fair. We have a lot to do in terms of engaging with the

story of the Troubles, the victims, including the many wounded or

traumatised, who feel largely neglected despite all have the

resources poured into that sector. There are other former combatants

who largely feel excluded. You can draw a link between the feelings of

former combatants and what we are seeing on the streets today. All of

these things are connected and we need a root-and-branch

disengagement. You talk about the economy being a big challenge. The

challenges posed -- posed by a child poverty, fuel poverty,

welfare reform and homelessness. are not saying you can't reform

welfare. We are not saying there's an infinity of capacity of

resources. We're just asking that where there are cutbacks and

reforms, they are respectful of human rights, including through

doing proper impact assessment on the basis of human rights for

welfare reform. Something we have not seen until now and which

hopefully the new committee will do something to redress. There's

always that notion of competing rights and responsibilities, when

we think about the area of human rights. Do you think we are more

understanding of the complexity of an issue like this than we were in

the past or will that always be a challenge? It will always be a

challenge. But the statement will help to redress that. This idea

that there's any rights and the responsibilities, that is nonsense.

Of key -- of course people have responsibilities to match the

rights and it is our job to remind people of that. The system is quite

this -- sophisticated, it works. Thing gee. -- A thank you.

The Education Minister appears to be off the Finance Minister's

Christmas card list. There's a growing rift between the two

departments. Sammy Wilson says he's not getting enough information

about John O'Dowd's spending. But Mr O'Dowd has in return accused Mr

Wilson of interfering. The issue was raised by Simon Hamilton during

education questions. The Department of Finance and Personnel is

responsible for the flow of departmental information from

government departments to the Treasury. My department does not

provide information directly to the Treasury. My department provides

the necessary information to the Giff p To allow them to respond to

Treasury requests. Thank you. The minister will be aware that his

department provides Her Majesty's Treasury with significant data

through the public expenditure statistical analysis. Does it not

strike the minister as odd that given there's a Red Cross... He is

prepared to assessed DFB in that record in providing the Treasury

with more detailed information than he is prepared to agree to this

house? I provide the same amount of details to the Treasury through DF

p as all other Executive departments. It is a very, very

detailed response to the Treasury. There is no difficulty in

transparency in finance. I have no difficulty in greater finances in

the Assembly. But I do have a difficulty with the Department of

Finance and Personnel having the ability to tell me as Minister how

and when and where I should spend finances. That is not transparency,

that is not transparency, that is interference. We are all clearly

governed by the relevant legislation as ministers, we are

clearly governed by the code of conduct around ministers. I'm not

aware of being in breach of any legislation, I'm not aware of being

in breach of any code of conduct. I am living up to my responsibilities

around this. If the information is flowing to the Treasury, if the

Treasury comes back and says we're going to tell you had to spend your

money, I would say you are not getting any more information. There

is a need... The Treasury get their money from taxpayers. The Treasury

doesn't grow the money on trees. Could the minister outlined the

benefits of this process to education in itself? That is

exactly the point. My officials could spend a lot of time shifting

paper from one desk to another, but they want to be involved in

delivering services to schools, boards and communities rather than

being paper shuffle as. It is beyond me as to what benefit it is

to education for further paperwork to be pushed back and forward

around financial issues. But if there is a need for further

financial transparency, I will support it, but I'm not going to us

support any were Najet which interferes with my role as minister.

The Education Minister, John O'Dowd. Martina Purdy is with me again. So

Martina, staying with education, you've heard a whisper that we may

be in for some positive headlines very soon. Yes. I understand

tomorrow it will be announced that Northern Ireland pupils are going

to score in the top 10 in terms of maths and reading and that is

following a report from the International Association for the

evaluation of educational achievement at Boston College. They

will also indicate that we have above average science skills. These

reports are based on several thousand students. It is quite a

big deal if that is the case. I understand the reports are out

around 9am tomorrow. Something to cheer about tomorrow. Another issue

that came up today at Stormont was the will for -- Welfare Reform

Group. A problem with the quality. That was born out of controversy

about what to do about welfare reform. Some concerns that there

should be a look at equality and human rights. The group was set up,

they were looking for the equality unit to give some evidence and they

asked the unit come along. The unit did not confirm their attendants,

but they were told today that the unit would not be coming along and

the deputy chair is concerned this could lead to costly delays. If we