Irish Political News

“Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” (George Santayana). I want to propose a different and some might say odd way in which we are, with the new Stormont, failing to remember one of the old Stormont’s failings: the lack of any realistic possibility of the parties of government being replaced. 

The DUP have suggested a keenness to change the nature of Stormont government and indeed both the SDLP and especially the UUP seem to have, at various times, considered opposition. The nature of the current lack of opposition is, I would suggest, one of the current executive’s fundamental flaws. In a strange way this parallels one of the flaws of the old Stormont. Yes; clearly the anti Catholic discrimination was the overwhelming problem. However, the lack of any proper opposition with a possibility of replacing the unionist government; at least in part caused by said unionist opposition to nationalism / Catholicism, was a further corrupting influence on the body politic.

To say that a lack of opposition was Stormont’s great flaw would of course be a hideous misrepresentation of reality. Unionists may argue that the nature of the old regime was not quite as bad as nationalists proclaim. However, we as unionists must face up to the fact that Stormont was a highly discriminatory system. It is true that when I take the boys to the Mo Mowlam play park and then walk up the hill to Carson’s statue and my favourite bit: Viscount Craigavon’s tomb, I do become a bit misty eyed. However, the reality was that our little statelet was flawed. Although I was aged 1 when Stormont was prorogued; I have to recognise that it was people of my sort who gained the most. Maybe we (the quite big house Prods) were not allowed by the real leadership (the proper Big House Prods) to have real power. The professional, managerial and big farmer set of Ulster Protestants did, however, gain greatly and excessively from the Stormont regime. For that we must apologise to our fellow citizens.

I would submit, however, that alongside the anti catholic discrimination and indeed the discrimination against the working class Protestant population; the lack of any opposition also utterly flawed Stormont and helped result in it being a failed political entity. The area I was brought up in just sneaked (I think) into the North Londonderry County constituency (though is part of South Londonderry in most local people’s terminology, including mine). As can be seen, there was only one candidate at many of the elections and from 1958 to 1972 Joseph Burns was elected unopposed. Had we been in Mid Londonderry (and I cannot be bothered to work it out exactly; it does not change my argument), the story is not that different with a Nationalist Paddy Gormley being repeatedly elected unopposed.

If one looks at the area where my wife lived: Lisnaskea, Viscount Brookeborough was consistently elected until replaced by his son. Looking at where the rest of her family are from, the South Fermanagh constituency, there were only elections on two occasions. Here we see in four essentially randomly chosen constituencies that there was no prospect of different people being elected.

I am not casting any aspersions on these MPs; what I am pointing out is that they were guaranteed to be perpetually re-elected. Whilst there are many safe constituencies in GB the major difference in Northern Ireland was that Mr. Burns or Viscount Brookeborough were always going to be in the party of government whilst the likes of Mr. Gormley and Cahir Healy were always going to be in opposition. There is a frequent tendency for countries (even democracies) with what is essentially one party rule to have endemic corruption, a tendency seen in the likes of Japan and definitely seen here under Stormont.

My concern is that the new Stormont is also, due to d’Hondt and the mandatory coalition, fated to have what is in effect one party rule (albeit with multiple parties) but with no real prospect of change. In this even proportional representation does not help. No matter what is there any realistic likelihood of removing the major political figures? Even the disastrously incompetent like Ruane, Poots and McGimpsey are in effect guaranteed to remain MLAs (even if we get rid of them as ministers and of course that is at the whim of their individual parties and not in any real way in the electorate’s gift) whilst a few of the foot soldiers, such as for example, Esmond Birnie, may fall by the way side; the more prominent (even if incompetent) will survive. Except that is, I guess, if a political party reaches epic levels of incompetence such as the SDLP’s spectacular self-destruction in West Tyrone.

As such we have all the ingredients to replicate one of the problems we had in the old Stormont, namely the lack of any effective opposition with a prospect of getting elected.

Since we cannot have meaningful competition for votes between unionist and nationalist parties and indeed we must for the foreseeable future have power sharing; it is essential to create intra nationalist and intra unionist competition, whereby the electorate have some realistic choice of political options.

The UUP, having briefly flirted with the idea of being in opposition, now seem rather less keen on it. I suspect that the leadership of the UUP realise that the chances of the current UUP leaders such as Empey and McGimpsey having power is inextricably linked with the current arrangements. Going into opposition might (just might) with new leaders one day result in the UUP being once again the majority party in unionism; for the current generation of UUP leaders, however, this is as good as it gets. Just as turkeys do not vote for Christmas; much as Empey and McGimpsey might (if they are politically farseeing enough) understand the potential advantages of having a proper opposition, they are well aware that the going into opposition would end their personal chances of having power and might well speed the end of their own political careers. Alternatively they may lack any political vision at all and simply be trying to survive from day to day. I guess it depends on whether one regards the current UUP leadership as merely useless and incompetent or useless, incompetent and stupid. The SDLP are of course in a very similar position to the UUP in this regard and again nationalist turkeys rather like unionist ones seem disinclined to vote for Christmas even if it is for the good of Northern Ireland as a whole or future generations of SDLP leaders.

A further major problem when the DUP call (in my view) very appropriately for an end to d’Hondt is that SF probably see this as a devious attempt by the DUP to engineer coalition government without SF and possibly as a manifestation of “Not having a fenian about the place”. As such they are extremely suspicious and unlikely to accept it.

Hence, I suspect that the DUP’s proposals for an end to mandatory coalition are most unlikely to get support from outside the DUP itself, no matter what their undoubted merits. Even if the DUP were to promise to share power with SF after elections, I suspect that would not help as it would be an epically large stick for them to hand to the UUP and TUV; that is even if SF believed them. In addition I suspect the British and Irish governments would be highly suspicious of anything that might rock the boat. They want Northern Ireland to become politically quiet. The fact that the system will inevitably produce useless government and rampant corruption is of no great concern to them and neither Mr. Ahern personally, nor the Scottish Labour Party from which Mr. Brown hails are exactly strangers to incompetence and corruption.

As such, I suspect this plan of the DUP’s is doomed, and the only way by which we can actually create a good government if not “one of the most successful governments anywhere” (to quote what must be one of the most disingenuous remarks made by Mr. Woodward) is to rub the whole thing out and start again. There are of course in my view many things rotten in the State of Denmark and this is just one of them.

With the jockeying over, for now, Brian Cowen has formally put his name forward to be the next leader of Fianna Fáil and, with it, Taoiseach.  From the RTÉ report

Mr Cowen was nominated by Minister for Justice Brian Lenihan, and seconded by the Minister for Agriculture, Mary Coughlan.  He is expected to be the only candidate when nominations for the leadership of Fianna Fáil contest close tomorrow afternoon.  Although it is still technically possible that another TD could enter the contest before nominations close at 2pm tomorrow, it is highly unlikely.

Meanwhile, Beverley Flynn, TD, who was just readmitted to the party yesterday, has been talking to RTÉ.

Mayo TD Beverley Flynn has said it would be a great honour for her to hold a ministerial office, but she said that decision would be up to Brian Cowen as the next Taoiseach.

Adds This report has some more details

Speaking on RTE radio this afternoon Ms Flynn said she regretted the outcome of her action against the broadcaster and “a lot of what happened over the last number of years”.

“I’m very keen at this stage to focus now on the future and that future I’m glad to say now is obviously back in the Fianna Fáil party where I hope to [be] able to work both locally and nationally,” she told the News at One.

Mr Ahern said after he was re-elected last year, that he envisaged she could be given a junior ministry in the future. And in today’s interview Ms Flynn referred to what the Taoiseach had said in the past and again referred to working “nationally”.

She said it would be an honour for her and her constituents if she were given a ministerial position.

And Minister for Enterprise Micheál Martin has said - “It is a matter entirely for the incoming Taoiseach. I will be happy to serve in any capacity.”

No-one involved seems to have published any statements on this yet, and the UTV News report doesn’t appear to be online, so this is partly based on my viewing of that report at 6pm.  At today’s public meeting of the Policing Board, Chief Constable Hugh Orde took the opportunity to respond to the Sinn Féin party line on recent anti-social behaviour and criminality - as mentioned here - and this brief, and apparently sole, online report notes the “furious row” which developed.

Sir Hugh Orde said Sinn Fein had made unwarranted attacks on his officers after recent murders in West Belfast and after last weekend`s violence in Belfast city centre.  But Mr Maskey said Sir Hugh Orde`s comments were disgraceful, patronising and arrogant.

To which I can add that, in the report I saw, Sinn Féin’s Alex Maskey also demanded an apology.  And Hugh Orde responded by stating that he stood by his statement to the Policing Board. Update Courtesy of Typhoo, we have that report I mentioned.  Adds A Belfast Telegraph report

In case anyone’s wondering, the title of the post is taken from Fionnula O’Connor’s article in the Irish Times, as noted here

It may be that leadership status has to be won afresh in west Belfast. Ranting against inadequate policing lets off steam, but is a diversion, like attacking critics - as Adams may have found out already.

Adds From the Belfast Telegraph report

At the monthly Policing Board meeting in Belfast, Sir Hugh conceded that his force was not perfect but vehemently denied that his officers were failing to act against crime.

“Broad statements saying my force is not up to it merits a response from me as I believe my force is up to it,” he said.

He said Sinn Fein’s stance was at best manipulative and at worst anti-police and that he had requested a meeting with Gerry Adams about the matter.

His comments drew an angry response from Sinn Fein, with Alex Maskey demanding a public apology.

He said the suggestion that his party was anti-police was deeply unhelpful in building relationships between the force and republicans.

The race may seem to be more about ruling themselves out of the race to replace Bertie Ahern but, as Adam says at Irish Election, with Brian Cowen all but crowned, “The real power struggle seems to be for the Deputy Leadership / Tanaiste Portfolio..” and, potentially, the next leadership race.  It’s another echo of the Blair/Brown handover..

Over at Comment is Free I’ve noted some intial thoughts on the unexpected announcement of the substantial foreshortening of the Taoiseach’s retirement. If his party didn’t expect it yesterday, it also reveals that they never quite understood the man, even if they loved him truly, madly and deeply.

In the Irish News last week, Jim Gibney took the party line on who’s to blame for anti-social behaviour and criminality in west Belfast. Since then, and with particular reference to the Squinter episode, Tom Kelly has had his say, “Freedom of speech would be a good starting point, including the right to critique the record of the local MP”, and Susan McKay was pointed in her column, “Talk about sackcloth and ashes.” But perhaps the most effective criticism comes from Fionnula O’Connor in the Irish Times today [subs req],

Sinn Féin in Stormont has failed to shine and Martin McGuinness powersharing with Ian Paisley has its drawbacks, not least relegation for Adams. It is a long time since he last looked presidential, and now he has lost face at home. In its own defence, “the West” long ago became self-aggrandising. It is struggling to adjust to the most predictable of outcomes - that an end to war would not deliver prosperity and crime-free streets, no more than in Harriet Harman’s Peckham or Ahern’s Dublin.

Fionnula O’Connor goes on to say

Signing up to support civil policing produced no miracles beyond the spectacle of senior officers sitting down in public meetings with local people. Not at all surprisingly, the PSNI has not defeated “the hoods” any more than IRA beatings, shootings, exiling and the occasional “execution” did.

Some locals always jibbed at Sinn Féin dominance, though not necessarily because they loathed the IRA. It was the new establishment many disliked: agencies fronted by Adams’s supporters, cheerleaders at cultural events not exactly rattling jewellery in the best seats but setting a communal tone, with a backbeat of IRA enforcement.

Most acknowledged the uplift for a formerly downtrodden community, but resented the imposition nonetheless.

The violent deaths of two local men who apparently confronted young hoodlums have pointed up painful reality - perhaps most for ageing republicans aware of their own mortality.

Without the IRA at their backs, some have arrived on the doorsteps of “problem families” to be told where to go, or, worse, asked who they think they are.

It may be that leadership status has to be won afresh in west Belfast. Ranting against inadequate policing lets off steam, but is a diversion, like attacking critics - as Adams may have found out already. “Do nothing of any knee-jerk,” he once idiosyncratically appealed to republicans, at a tense moment for negotiations. But knee-jerk he did when lambasted a fortnight ago by the Squinter column in the Andersonstown News. Squinter is editor Robin Livingstone: the Andytown News has been Pravda to the Sinn Féin Kremlin. Blaming Adams - because he has been an MP for 20 years - for shirking responsibility for local ills might have been a mite skewed, but Squinter the rebel was a revelation.

The rebellion was brief. The next edition carried a stiff Adams objection on the front page and a slavish apology. Squinter’s defiance and the raft of substantially supportive responses - one comparing Sinn Féin unfavourably with Ian Paisley jnr’s lobbying at St Andrews for his “own people” - were wiped from the paper’s website.

Obviously nobody dared tell the Dear Leader what a comedown this was from windy talk about democracy and equality.

He may grudge the limelight to Deputy First Minister Martin. But if you want to stay number one in a collective leadership, self-awareness should surely be a help.

The competition to replace the reverse designs on the 1p, 2p, 5p, 10p and 50p coins by Christopher Ironside, introduced in 1971, and the 20p reverse design by William Gardner, introduced in 1982, was launched in August 2005 by the Royal Mint. Today, via the Guardian, and in greater detail by the Telegraph, the winning designs have been revealed - and they’ve added the £1 coin reverse to the original competition’s 6 coins.  They’re not bad either.  It’s not entirely clear whether the point noted below, from the Royal Mint website, applies in particular to the £1 coin - which has used different reverse designs for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Adds The winning designer.  And it looks like that point does apply in particular to the £1 coin.

As you can see in the image to the right [below], the Shield of the Royal Arms has been given a contemporary treatment and its whole has been cleverly split among all six denominations from the 1p to the 50p, with the £1 coin displaying the heraldic element in its entirety. This is the first time that a single design has been used across a range of United Kingdom coins.

The full set of coins showing how the separate reverse designs work together.

Also from the Royal Mint website

The new designs will enter circulation gradually throughout the year. It is normal practice for banks to order coins from the Royal Mint to satisfy public demand, which fluctuates over the course of the year. The current coin designs will remain in circulation and as legal tender for the foreseeable future.

Adds The winning designer, 26 year-old Matthew Dent

In seeking to spread a single design across six denominations, Matthew Dent conceived an idea that has never been realised before on the British coinage. To have the £1 as the unifying coin only emerged towards the end of the design process. Matthew Dent has commented that ‘the addition of the £1 coin design to the set was as a way of defining the whole series. A key coin uniting the designs’. Against all the odds, a young artist has won a public competition and devised a stunningly original series that stands as an imaginative and clever solution.

RTÉ is currently carrying coverage and speculation on an expected statement from Taoiseach Bertie Ahern in light of the recent conflicting evidence to the Mahon Tribunal and his legal challenge in the courts. That speculation includes the possibility that he might announce standing down as leader of Fianna Fáil.. Update You can ignore the question mark.  Bertie Ahern to tender resignation as Taoiseach and leader of Fianna Fáil on Tuesday 6th May.  Hmm.. That’s Blair, Paisley, Ahern.. anyone else? Adds In the afterglow of a successful election, in May 2007, Mick grabbed this quote from Bertie Ahern - “I’ll work until May or June of 2012.” And BBC report here with a short clip from the statement [RealPlayer file].  Full statement here. More Reactions. From President McAleese and his expected successor Brian Cowen, and Labour Party Leader Eamon Gilmore [et al]. And Reaction from Tony Blair. The BBC round-up reaction. Heh. Shane Hegarty has a verbatim report “for those who missed it”. Update In the comments zone Conall McDevitt notes an interesting point about Ahern’s chosen resignation date - it’s before the planned US NI investment conference [7th - 9th May] Final Update Via Maman Poulet. That moment in time..

A reminder that BBC NI’s natural history series Blueprint starts tonight, BBC 1 9pm, and it’ll be available on iPlayer too [Has anyone told Edwin? - Ed].  And, perhaps as a result of the pressure from the young-Earthers, TalkBack today discussed their opposition to a scientific approach to natural history [the audio file is available for now, RealPlayer file].  Blueprint presenter, Will Crawley, posts a reminder too, and on his Sunday Sequence programme this week held a round-table discussion of his own which, as recommended by Mick, deals admirably with the history of the debate on the age of the Earth. [RealPlayer file] Familiar references in that discussion to re-entwining reason and faith.. and a lot of evidence of an absence of rational thinking.. Meanwhile, series producer Natalie Maynes reveals where the initial idea came from

The initial idea was sparked by an article I read which claimed that Ireland was once split in two and that both halves of the island were on separate continents.

The Northern Ireland Bill of Rights Forum completed its weekend deliberations and delivered its final report [pdf file] today - there’s a correction to the report too [pdf file].  The BBC report points to both the DUP and the Catholic Church’s boycott of the launch of the report [pdf file] at the Hilton Hotel, linking that boycott to an issue which the Assembly has already debated.. but the UTV report indicates that the DUP’s criticism of the report is based on much wider grounds. Adds Full DUP statement here

DUP Forum delegate Peter Weir said: “We want to see a Bill of Rights which can command that support across the population of Northern Ireland. What has been produced does not even come close to representing that.”

He continued: “The main recommendations are contained in Chapter Four of the report. That chapter contains 41 substantive proposals. None of these proposals were passed unanimously and none of them have cross community support.  “There are 216 secondary recommendations. None of them was passed unanimously and a mere seven have cross-community support,” he added.

Over to you, Monica..

Interesting to note that, according to this RTÉ report, Northern Ireland First Minister, the DUP’s Ian Paisley, will be otherwise engaged when some, but not all, of those involved at the time memorialise the 1998 Agreement. The report doesn’t mention whether any other NI Executive ministers will be accompanying the “businessman of God..” From the RTÉ report

Dr Paisley is about to embark on what amounts to a lap of honour before he steps down as First Minister and DUP leader at the end of May.  He will be overseas, attending functions in New York and Washington, on the actual date of the 10th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement, 10 April.

Via Newshound. Interesting view-point from Kevin Myers on The Process™ and the ‘price of peace’. Room too for some archival links - on Gerry Adams, “armed struggle” was “necessary”, MI5 and the back-channel, and the US government’s role in the latter part of that Process™. Read the whole thing.

For the peace process was solely about ensuring the IRA never bombed London again; and as far as MI5 - the prime movers of the peace process - was concerned, the corruption of Northern Irish political life was a small price to pay.

Mick has pointed to the actual debate to be had around Gordon Brown’s defence of the Union. But, rather than looking for complicated reasons and strategies behind Brown’s apparent playing down of Northern Ireland’s role in the United Kingdom, sometimes, as Henry McDonald suggests here, there’s a simpler reason for these things.

In his promotion of the union, not only in relation to Scotland but also Wales, the prime minister failed to mention Northern Ireland, which drew a wave of criticism from Ulster unionists and their supporters in the Tory press.

Yet neither unionist politicians or their allies in the London media ought to be surprised over Brown’s omission of Northern Ireland - because the delicate political settlement that has guaranteed the union between the north of Ireland and Britain requires periods of diplomatic silence.

As Fair Deal has already noted here.

Unlike the printed version, the full online text of Brown’s article did mention Northern Ireland, but only in passing.  And it’s a sufficiently fleeting a mention, compared to Wales and Scotland, to still support the argument made by Henry McDonald.

Unlike Scotland and Wales, Gordon Brown doesn’t have to compete for votes against other parties in Northern Ireland. That is because Labour doesn’t organise across the Irish Sea.

The only thing the prime minister has to concern himself with is that the political settlement at Stormont remains in place.

To trumpet the continued existence of Northern Ireland inside the UK would be to rub nationalist noses in it.

So instead the British government maintains radio silence on the north’s constitutional status.

Interesting interjection by DUP MLA Jim Wells, and one I entirely agree with, on the felling of a number of protected trees in a private estate on the outskirts of Newcastle, County Down.  One for the Northern Ireland Minister for the Environment, the DUP’s Arlene Foster, to ponder.. As the Woodland Trust spokesman says,

Patrick Craig from the Woodland Trust said: “We’re just absolutely appalled that yet again some more native trees have been destroyed.

“The legislation is very, very strong, but unfortunately when it comes to enforcement, there doesn’t seem to be the willingness or ability of anybody to actually enforce those protection orders.”

Also from the BBC report

A DOE spokesperson said: “Planning Service can confirm that investigations into a possible breach of planning control in the Bryansford area of Newcastle are ongoing, however we cannot comment on the details of the investigation at this stage.”

A possible breach?

Before heading over to Mark Devenport’s blog to see the draft Bill of Rights, delivered by Chris Sidoti for discussion at the Bill of Rights Forum, it is worth reminding people what the remit given the Forum was in the first place:

“To advise on the scope for defining, in Westminster legislation, rights supplementary to those in the European Convention on Human Rights, to reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, drawing as appropriate on international instruments and experience. These additional rights to reflect the principles of mutual respect for the identity and ethos of both communities and parity of esteem, and – taken together with the ECHR – to constitute a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland.”

Now, before anyone panics, there is still most of a weekend of discussions (and presumably a lot of horse trading) before this gets passed on to the Human Rights Commission. Thence, it will pass through various hands (the most brutal of which is likely to be the NIO) before showing up at Stormont. But some of the stuff that’s in there bears little relationship to enactable law. More importantly, much of seems to have flagrantly ignored the remit and/or has gone way beyond matters that are under the control of the devolved institutions.

One slightly bemused delegate told Slugger:

The Unionists are largely opposed as most new rights are outwith the remit, excepted (UK) matters, programmatic, party political issues or uncosted as well as frequently repeating what is in the ECHR and thus the Human Rights Act.

The ‘voluntary’ sector has no concept of compromise and are almost religious in their certainties. Zealotry is one description or silent solidarity. CoSO could be described as the mute sector.

Most of its proposals are worthy but to the left of the left of the Labour Party. The SDLP is in favour of anything and everything except abortion and won’t oppose any SF proposal. DUP were somewhat intermittent in their attendance but have become more rigorous of late.

Another source agreed to an extent there was an air of unreality to some of the proposals coming from the voluntary sectors, but that some of the critical players, like the Unions, had experience of bargaining and was confident that the final draft can be whittled down to something more likely to get enacted.

There has been no voting mechanism agreed, so the Forum is in for an intense weekend of horse trading bit by bit until it’s offering due to be delivered on Monday at 2pm at the Hilton Hotel. A rally called by the Human Rights Consortium for Monday afternoon has been cancelled due to “ongoing workloads and time restrictions in the build up to the end of the Forum’s work”.

The ripples from the evidence to the Mahon Tribunal last week seem to be unsettling the coalition. Both John Gormley, of the Green Party, and Mary Harney, from the PDs, have called on Taoiseach Bertie Ahern to clarify his account. Another Minister of State, Bertie Noel Ahern, disagrees. More from Cian at Irish Election.

Sorry, another Telegraph link. But Damian Thompson’s line on Gordon Brown’s reasons for proposing an end to the Act of Succession: he’s fearful of losing a solid base of Catholic Labour voters in central Scotland… Over to you?

Across Europe, there are nationalisms of many different types. In Britain as in Ireland finding the weight of a new citizenship is proving tough and in complicated by ‘red in tooth and claw’ politics: whether Bertie’s ill-fated attempt to get a national debate off the ground around any future implementation of Schengen and what it might ask of national consciousness in the Republic; or the political intriguing around Brown’s attempts to get a sane discussion going on the ever vexed theme of Britishness.

“Whatever happened to..”, indeed..  Funding wasn’t mentioned in the reports on the unaccredited Belfast community-based Restorative Justice scheme but, via Newshound, we have a report on an attempt to secure funding for the Barcroft CRJ scheme from Newry and Mourne Council, as proposed by Sinn Féin councillor Brendan Curran - despite the scheme not signing up to the NIO protocols. The Newry Democrat report ends by noting that

It was then decided that money will be ring-fenced for Barcroft CRJ from council funds until the group signs up to the protocols.

The condition should, surely, be “until the group receives full accreditation”?  But a second SF councillor adds the quote of the day

However SDLP councillor Gary Stokes expressed his concerns that the group had not yet signed up to protocols required by the Northern Ireland Office for CRJ funding. Sinn Fein’s Pat McGinn said that knowing the members of the group personally he could vouch for them as honest and law-abiding citizens and accused the SDLP of demonising the CRJ.

It’s not the first time the issue has come up at Newry and Mourne Council, as the minutes of the Council’s monthly meeting on 5 June 2006 show [pdf file]

M/171/2006 - SPECIAL STAFF AND POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING TO CONSIDER AND ASSESS VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION APPLICATIONS UNDER THE ‘N’ CATEGORY (REF: M/4/2)

Read: Report of Special Meeting of the Staff and Policy Committee, to which all Councillors were invited, to consider and assess Voluntary Contribution Applications under the ‘N’ Category for 2006 / 2007 held on Friday 19 May 2006. (Copy circulated)

Councillor Hearty proposed and Councillor McDonald seconded that the above Report be approved and the recommendation contained therein, i.e. that:-
“Funding for applications which scored 22 points or more, and which requested £5,000 plus, would be capped at £5,000 and that applications requesting less that £5,000 and scoring over 22 points would receive 75% of the amount requested i.e. at a total of £147,175”

As an amendment to Councillor Hearty’s proposal, Councillor Carr proposed and Councillor Kennedy seconded the Report of the Special Meeting of the Staff and Policy Committee held on Friday 19 May 2006 to consider and assess Voluntary Contribution Applications under the ‘N’ Category for 2006/2007 be approved subject to the following amendment: -

“Voluntary Contribution Applications from Greater Barcroft Community Restorative Justice Group (ref 1346) and the Gap of the North Community Restorative Justice Group (ref 1345) be taken out of the Voluntary Contribution Applications for 2006/2007 and the groups be advised and encouraged to apply to the Northern Ireland Office for funding.

The Voluntary Contribution Applications from Dromintee Community Safety Group (ref 1284), Meigh Safety Awareness Association (ref 1310), Jonesborough Community Safety Group (ref 1347) and Forkhill Community Group (ref 1348) be taken out of the Voluntary Contributions Applications for 2006/2007 and the Groups be advised and encouraged to apply to the Community Safety Unit, Belfast for funding”

Councillor Carr said he was concerned that people were encouraged by Community Safety Groups to ring a mobile telephone number as opposed to contacting the PSNI.

Councillor Kennedy said he believed that the 6 groups needed to be removed from the Voluntary Contributions list, as none of those groups were actively working with the PSNI and other lawful agencies engaged in this work.

Mr McCall reminded Members of the legal advice that had been given to the Council during 2005 in relation to grant application from CRJ Groups.

He advised that any decisions taken must be in line and in accordance with these legal advices.

He advised Members that copies of the legal advices were available for them at tonight’s Meeting.

There followed a lengthy discussion on the procedures involved in compiling the Voluntary Contribution Applications list from the initial advertising stages to the scoring and assessing stages.

Councillor Reilly pointed out that when Councillor Hearty had made his proposal at the Special Staff and Policy Meeting held on Friday 19 May 2006, he had agreed in principle but would adhere to the legal advice previously given to the Council in relation to this matter.

Councillor Mussen said he believed the scoring system for Voluntary Contribution Applications should be revisited before next year. He said the Community Safety Groups may be viewed as complimentary rather than replacing policing. He said community pressure on those who did commit anti-social behaviour must be mindful of Human Rights and he did not in any way support vigilante groups.

Councillor Connolly asked that it be recorded that he had at no time attempted to block any Group in the Mournes area from receiving Council funding.

Councillor Carr said he wished it recorded that he did not discriminate against groups from the South Armagh area.

The amendment proposed by Councillor Carr and seconded by Councillor Kennedy “that the Report of the Special Meeting of the Staff and Policy Committee held on Friday 19 May 2006 to consider and assess Voluntary Contribution Applications under the ‘N’ Category for 2006/2007 be approved subject to the following amendment: -

Voluntary Contribution Applications from greater Barcroft Community Restorative Justice Group (ref 1346) and the Gap of the North Community Restorative Justice Group (ref 1345) be taken out of the Voluntary Contribution Applications for 2006/2007 and the groups be advised and encouraged to apply to the Northern Ireland Office for funding.

The Voluntary Contribution Applications from Dromintee Community Safety Group (ref 1284), Meigh Safety Awareness Association (ref 1310), Jonesborough Community Safety Group (ref 1347) and Forkhill Community Group (ref 1348) be taken out of the Voluntary Contributions Applications for 2006/2007 and the Groups be advised and encouraged to apply to the Community Safety Unit, Belfast for funding” was put to a recorded vote and the voting was as follows: (copy attached)

FOR: 14
AGAINST: 12
ABSTENTIONS: 3

The amendment was declared carried.
The amendment became the Substantive Motion and was put to a vote and voting was as follows:-

FOR: 14
AGAINST: 12
ABSTENTIONS: 1

The Motion was declared carried.

Councillor Curran said he wished it recorded that he was against the Motion, as the only groups that were ever excluded from the Voluntary Contributions List were the Restorative Justice Groups.

Councillor Reilly said he wished it recorded that his vote was based on legal advice received last year.

It was further agreed that Mr R Dowey, Director of Finance prepare a Report detailing the funding which had not now been taken up under the ‘N’ Section and that this Report be tabled for consideration at the Finance Committee Meeting to be held on Thursday 15 June 2006, to which all Members were to be invited to attend for discussion on this item and to agree allocation of this money.

On the proposal of Councillor Kennedy seconded by Councillor Oliver it was agreed to convene a Fews Area Councillors Meeting with Tullyvallen Football Club and appropriate Council Official to discuss their Voluntary Contribution Application.

And the issue reappears in the minutes of the Annual General Meeting on 19th June 2006 [pdf file]

D.D/209/2006 - TO SEEK LEGAL ADVICE RE ‘N’ SECTION VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS (REF: M/4/2)

Read: Minute of Finance Sub Committee Meeting held on Thursday 15 June 2006 in respect of ‘N’ Section Voluntary Contributions was which referred to the District Development Committee Meeting.

The recommendations were as follows: -

Councillor Kennedy proposed the existing issue regarding ‘N’ Category Voluntary Contributions 2006.2007, including correspondence from Mr E Morgan, Community Restorative Justice and correspondence from Mr Brain Finnegan, Slieve Gullion Community Safety Forum be referred to the Council’s Solicitor for up-to-date legal advices on if and how the Council may proceed.

Councillor McArdle seconded the above proposal.

Councillor McDonald proposed that no letters of offer be sent regarding Applications amounting to £126,908, until such times as the Council had received legal advice on sending letters of offer to these particular Applications.

Councillor Murphy seconded the above Proposal.

Councillor Carr proposed that the Council proceed to send out the letters of offer regarding the successful Applications amounting to £126,908.

Councillor McArdle seconded the above proposal.

A vote was taken on the first Proposal, and voting was as follows:
For: 8
Against: 6

The Proposal was declared carried, and it was therefore agreed that no letters of offer be sent regarding Applications amounting to £126,908, until such times as the Council had received legal advice on sending offer letters to these particular Applications.

It was further agreed that when seeking the above legal advices, the Council also ask for clarification as to whether or not it is legal to allocate funding to a group which meets the same criteria as the groups who were refused.

It was also agreed the above decisions be referred for consideration at the District Development Committee Meeting to be held on Monday 19 June 2006.

In reply to Councillor Stokes Mr McCall clarified that the Council had sought legal opinion over a year ago on this issue and he was not aware of any changes in the legislation at this point in time.

Councillor Reilly felt it would be prudent to seek up to date legal opinion as it seemed unfair not sent out the letters of offer to those successful applications.

Mr McCall said that as a different marking system had been used this year in respect of the ‘N’Category Voluntary Contributions it may be prudent to seek further legal opinion.

Councillor Stokes proposed and Councillor Reilly seconded that authority be granted to proceed to send letters of offer to those successful applications amounting to £126,908 at this time and that detailed legal opinion be sought in respect of the 6 No applications which are withheld detailed as follows:-

(1) 1284 Drumintee Community Safety Group
(2) 1310 Meigh Safety Awareness Association
(3) 1345 Gap Of The North CRJ
(4) 1346 Greater Barcroft CRJ
(5) 1347 Jonesborough Community Safety Group
(6) 1348 Forkhill Community Safety Group

It was agreed to seek legal opinion in this matter at the earliest opportunity with the legal opinion to be brought back to the Council at a Meeting with the Council’s
Solicitor being in attendance.

Authority be granted to the Council’s Solicitor to appoint Counsel if necessary.

Read: Letter dated the 19 June 2006 from Elliot Trainor Partnership Solicitors in respect of the applications made by the Gap Of The North CRJ, Drumintee Safety Group, Meigh Safety Awareness Association, Jonesborough Community Safety Group and Forkhill Community Safety Group inviting the Council to reconsider their decision to refuse to make a voluntary contribution to the above named groups.

It was agreed to refer correspondence dated the 19 June 2006 from Elliot Trainor Partnership Solicitors to Mr Rory McShane, Council’s Solicitor.

And, in the August 2006 Monthly Meeting minutes [pdf file]

FINANCIAL MATTERS
M/218/2006 - SPECIAL STAFF AND POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING – LEGAL ADVICE REGARDING VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS
(REF: F/3/75)_________________________________________

Read: Report of Staff and Policy Committee Meeting held on Tuesday 25 July 2006 re: legal advice from R McShane & Company Solicitors regarding voluntary contributions (copy circulated).

On the proposal of Councillor Feehan, seconded by Councillor W Burns, it was agreed to approve the above report and the recommendations contained therein.
Mr T McCall, Chief Executive, advised that he would be meeting with the Barrister on Tuesday 8 August 2006 in relation to voluntary contributions and would report back to the Council on the outcome of this meeting as soon as possible.

Following further discussion it was agreed that Mr McCall ask the Barrister if it would be in order for the Council to release all other applications on the voluntary contribution list which were not CRJ related as many groups throughout the area needed the money from the Council to cover the costs of events, many of which had already been held.

It was agreed that Mr McCall raise this matter with the Barrister and if an indication was given that all other voluntary contribution funding could be released, an urgent meeting be convened with the Group Leaders and Independent Councillors to discuss this matter.

I can’t find any reference to more recent discussion on CRJ’s in the Council until the Newry Democrat report already noted above.

A couple of reports to consider on the “refined process” that is the Historical Enquiries Team. The BBC report notes that “In the first year the team had a 40% turnover in staff, while it was about 29% last year. There are currently 180 staff, up from 80 two years ago.” and they have this quote from a HET spokeswoman

A spokeswoman for the HET told the Press Association many members only signed up to the job for a limited period because of the travel.  “Many are attracted to work for HET because of the unique nature of the challenge and a desire to help families if possible,” she said.  “However, the nature of the work is also very challenging and some people find that after an extended period, they do not want to experience any more of the trauma involved in these cases. “HET currently have a mentoring system in place whereby experienced staff help new arrivals with all aspects of HET work.”

The Belfast Telegraph report, however, includes this quote from NI Affairs Committee member, Sammy Wilson

Party colleague Sammy Wilson, a member of the NI Affairs Committee, said he found the turnover rates “quite alarming”.  He said: “I suppose some of the detectives concerned thought they were going to be reinvestigating crimes and bringing people to book, but then found out that is not quite what they were doing.”

He was concerned about the “immense” amount of resources involved and the fact that the HET has only questioned one terrorist under caution to date, despite having completed reviews of over 400 murders and having more than 1,000 under active investigation.

Some interesting detail from the Irish News front-page report in which “one of the leading lights in CRJ”, Jim McCarthy, who was sentenced to five years in 1976 for possession of firearms, “angrily” denies being an informer after he had, reportedly, “been visited at his west Belfast home by police who told him he was to be publicly exposed.” [subs req for now] The report quotes a Sinn Féin spokesman

A Sinn Fein spokesman said: “We can confirm Jim McCarthy contacted the party after the PSNI visited him.  “Sinn Fein was happy to let Jim know that there was no evidence that he was to be outed as an informer. “Jim provides a valuable community service in the area and we fully support him in taking the matter future in terms of his complaint to the ombudsman.”

And the report also notes that, as was the case with Roy McShane, McCarthy had previously been a driver for the Sinn Féin leadership.

The 51-year-old, who was once a driver for Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams, has also been visited at his west Belfast home by police who told him he was to be publicly exposed.

The report doesn’t record when he was a driver nor whether he shared another of McShane’s roles.

In 1989 that internal security unit was stood down over concerns that it had been infiltrated by the British intelligence agencies. In what would prove to be a crucial mistake the IRA moved many of those involved in the ‘nutting squad’ into protection and driving roles for the Sinn Fein leadership.

I had asked previously, “Whatever happened to..” [community restorative justice].  Well, coincidentally, the first ten minutes of Radio 4’s Law in Action programme today dealt with “Justice Belfast style”.  The audio [RealPlayer file] is accompanied by an online article specifically about the Belfast report. There’s no mention of funding in either report, nor of the “volunteers patrolling” west Belfast, but the case used as an example of the work they do is worth noting.  With no statement being made to the police, about an attempted extortion of £10,000 by armed men describing themselves as being from “the republican movement”, the response of the Restorative Justice group took this form - Firstly Jim McCarthy, “one of the leading lights of CRJ”, assures the victim that “mainstream republicans” were not involved and, he tells the reporter,

“Different well-known people in the community will visit Margaret and Barry’s house today and tomorrow.  They’ll be seen going in and out of the house.  Just showing community support.”

Or, as the online report puts it

Margaret left CRJ’s Twinbrook office that morning feeling safer. Jim McCarthy had arranged for a number of well-known Republicans to drop in on her family at home. They hoped these public visits would scare away the extortionists.

The Northern Ireland Secretary of State, Shaun Woodward, MP, may or may not actually believe that the NI Executive has become “one of the most successful governments anywhere”..  ANYhoo.. It’s part of the mood music for the 10th anniversary of the 1998 Agreement and, whilst Bill Clinton will be elsewhere, Taoiseach Bertie Ahern has decided to hold a gala dinner for former UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, at Dublin Castle.  Maurice Hayes is less impressed with the “rush to memorialise” - “it is still a work in progress” - and he recalls a Brendan Behan tale about Corporation workers “celebrating the seventh birthday of the hole”.  He also identifies why the Sinn Féin leadership continue to mis-represent the May ‘target date’ as an enforceable ‘deadline’ when talking up the devolution of policing and justice powers - despite it being clear for some time. From the article

Sinn Fein needs these powers to be devolved, not only because they represent the last piece of the Patten jigsaw, but because it was a main element in the bill of sale on which they persuaded republicans to buy into support for policing.

For Patten, it was a defining function of government, and a manifest of the commitment of parties to defend the institutions and the common good, that they should exercise these powers. For Sinn Fein and republicans, it is symbolically important that these powers should be exercised by local politicians responsible to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Without that, the Sinn Fein leadership would not have got agreement, and failure to deliver will seriously damage their credibility.

Which may be the reason for those predicted “major problems ahead..” Adds A further thought.  With conditions on the ground being so important to building confidence ahead of devolving those powers.. does this help or hinder?

Community Restorative Justice? The question arises, in part, from the absence of any reference to ‘restorative justice’ in Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams’ statements on the murder of Frank McGreevy and, in particular, his party’s apparent support for ‘tougher policing’ to deal with anti-social behaviour - the police investigation into the circumstances surrounding that murder continues.  No longer funded by Chuck Feeney’s Atlantic Philanthropies some of the RJ schemes, but not all of them, have so far failed to gain the necessary accreditation to receive public funds for their activities.  Meanwhile an Irish News report points to activities on the ground in west Belfast, where “Volunteers patrolling a west Belfast neighbourhood where a father-of-two was beaten to death last weekend are to be given a direct line to police.” Pictured below are SF MLA, Paul Maskey, “community workers” Stephen Corr and Sean Murray and Superintendent Nick Purce. It’s not the first photo of Sean Murray the Irish News has carried..

Here he is in May last year, at a meeting chaired by Martin McAleese, seemingly representing the Provisional IRA Army Council to Jackie McDonald’s representing the UDA inner council. Left to right, Sean Murray, Martin McAleese, Jackie McDonald.

Btw, Sean Murray is also a member of the Parades Review Team.

On Restorative Justice, the November report from the Criminal Justice Inspectorate on CRJ (Ireland) schemes noted some points on the Belfast-based organisation.

5.8 The Belfast schemes handle a wide range of business, which includes some serious crime and threats from dissident paramilitaries. They are well run, and great dedication is shown by the small team of staff members as well as by the volunteers. Inspectors were astonished at the commitment shown by many of those they interviewed, and there could be no question about their motivation being to help their communities, not in any sense to control them. [added emphasis]

And that

5.10 The Belfast schemes are not in the business of patrolling or providing a security presence. They have separated themselves from the Safer Neighbourhood projects, though there is still evidence of some members participating in both. Inspectors agree that CRJI is right to pursue a policy of separation, so that their role does not become confused.

Since November, the date of the report, there have been reports of a number of incidents, and confrontations, in which “veteran republicans” have been hospitalised or, as in the most recent case, killed - although it’s worth pointing out that none of the reports directly linked those incidents to any organisational activity.

But, as the Irish News report noted

Members of the Safer Neighbourhoods Project patrol the streets of the lower Falls in a bid to clamp down on anti-social behaviour.

They have been given a mobile phone number to call should trouble erupt.

Until last night the group contacted police through the police switchboard, which had prompted complaints alleging slow response times.

Now volunteers have been given a phone number that will connect them directly to a duty inspector, who can dispatch officers if necessary.

Meanwhile, the schemes’ public responses to criminal activity has been less than encouraging.

The organisation that deals with restorative justice in the area, Colin Community Restorative Justice, says it has contacted paramilitary groups who deny involvement and has offered to mediate with the criminal gang it says is involved.  Police have confirmed there are death threats and that the man the gang were after, who is married with two children, has now fled the area.

The police response in other areas to serious crime has been equalling less than encouraging at times.. as has the governments’.

And, while the Northern Ireland Alternatives’ schemes are now accredited, there were concerns raised in May last year by the CJI report then.

“In particular there needs to be clarity about the limits beyond which delinquent or anti-social behaviour needs to be treated as criminal and reported to the police,” it stated.

“The schemes are clear that serious offences must be notified, but there has been a grey area where some of the judgements made have not been entirely comfortable.”

Another point to note is that, although no longer funding Restorative Justice Groups, Atlantic Philanthropies continues to fund other organisations here.

Picking up on a report by Chris Thornton in the Belfast Telegraph, the BBC NI political editor Mark Devenport has blogged a suggestion for a possible solution to the still undecided structure of any devolved ministry for policing and justice..

“Is there a solution to the standoff over completing devolution here? Could we get a new department of justice, with a small j to appeal to nationalists and a gov.uk address to keep unionists happy? Perhaps it could be jointly led by a Justice minister and another justice Minister.....”

It would, of course, still leave the issue of the timing..

Former US President Bill Clinton has reportedly cited “changes to his schedule” for his decision not to attend the US-Ireland Alliance’s planned event on 10 April to mark the 10th Anniversary of the 1998 Agreement - if not The Process™ in its entirety. Something else on his mind? Perhaps Trina Vargo, president of the US-Ireland Alliance, should consider inviting Mitchell Reiss instead.. or even John McCain.. Apparently the current Northern Ireland First Minister, the DUP’s Ian Paisley Snr, has not yet decided whether he will attend.

Other guests confirmed to attend the event include Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, General John de Chastelain, who oversaw paramilitary decommissioning, former and present SDLP leaders John Hume and Mark Durkan, Ulster Unionist leader Sir Reg Empey and ex-Northern Ireland secretary Paul Murphy.

Simon at Irish Election wonders whether this is “the smoking gun?” We’ll have to wait to see whether Taoiseach Bertie Ahern can square the apparent circle between his previous account and the latest evidence to the Mahon Tribunal - his lawyer yesterday said he needed time to consult w