BREAKING THE LOGJAM CONFERENCE - GREGORY CAMPBELL SPEAKS

Comments by Gregory Campbell MP on 23rd September at 'Breaking the Log-Jam' Conference' Parliament Buildings, Stormont. Mr Campbell said,

"Elections which are followed by negotiations offer the best hope of progress in the political process in Northern Ireland. We need a new agreement which can command the support of a majority of unionists as well as nationalists and one which can actually deliver stable government.

The Belfast Agreement created political institutions which have been in crisis for over five years and in suspension for almost a year. That is a clear indication that it has failed. As someone who opposed the Belfast Agreement since day one let me assure you that there is an absolute commitment on the part of the DUP to move forward.

We do not accept the Belfast Agreement represents the way ahead and believe that new arrangements are required which can command the support of the unionist as well as the nationalist community. The real debate is not over whether we move on but on how we move on. The actions of the Governments and the pro agreement parties over the last few years indicate that they have not yet realised that the current arrangements have not worked and they will not work.

The direction of future progress must be predicated on a realistic assessment of situation. Political realities on all sides must be faced up to. The prize of a form of government which operates effectively and is supported by unionists and nationalists is a great one. Why then do the government insist on trying to revive a form of Government which they know is opposed by the majority of the unionist community and will not actually work? To say that unionist and nationalist support is required is simply a statement of fact. Indeed the institutions created by the Belfast Agreement are predicated on that basis. They cannot function without it.

Rather than clinging to the wreckage of the Belfast Agreement let us together look to a new way forward. We are not hung up on what the process which reaches that outcome is called but what it can achieve. That is the sensible way to proceed. In fact we have already set out in our recent publication, 'Towards a New Agreement', what we believe to be the fundamental flaws of the Belfast Agreement. The remedy will require a new Northern Ireland Act and consequently a new agreement. It must be a new agreement that unionists can have as much confidence in as nationalists had in the old one.

It is important that those who supported the Belfast Agreement break free of that failed straight jacket and begin to look at new ways forward. The Belfast Agreement failed to deliver institutions which would actually work to the benefit of people in Northern Ireland.

Our opposition to terrorists exercising unaccountable executive power in Northern Ireland is well known. It has not and will not change. Nor shall we be fooled by cynical actions by republicans to allow them to return to such positions. That however does not mean that there can not be devolution which can command significant support in both communities.

It is wrong to think, as most of the current debate seems to, that the sole issue is the role of Sinn Fein and its place in Government. This is not the only issue to resolve. Who sits in government is merely one of many fundamental problems with the Belfast Agreement. We must create institutions which can avoid being derailed because of problems in the political process.

In all of the fuss about Sinn Fein, decommissioning and the countless meetings of the Ulster Unionist Council many of the other real problems have been ignored altogether. The mistake that the pro agreement parties have made is to look for solutions to the problems which they have faced within the box of the Belfast Agreement. The truth is that the institutions created by the Belfast Agreement have caused some of the problems. It is far better to step back and ask what we want to achieve and then create institutions which can do that. Let us look at just a few failings within the Belfast Agreement which should be obvious to people from all backgrounds in Northern Ireland and not simply anti agreement unionists.

Let us take the crucial example of how decisions are actually taken and power is exercised under the Belfast Agreement. It is neither by the Assembly nor even the Executive but largely by individual Ministers who were determined on a first come first served basis. For most decisions a Minister need not carry a majority in the Assembly nor even the Executive and is largely free to do as he wishes.

How could anyone justify a Minister being able to take decisions pertaining to their own Departments which were accountable neither to the Assembly, the Executive nor the people of Northern Ireland as a whole? Yet that was the reality of the situation as demonstrated on a number of occasions perhaps most notably over the location of the maternity services in Belfast.

That decision represents only the tip of the iceberg of what could happen. It highlights the fact that accountability in the Assembly is simply an illusion. That problem poses serious issues for any future devolution of justice and policing in the future.

Further, coherent decision making at the centre by the Executive is absent. There is an executive but there is not - and really can not be under the present arrangements - any Cabinet responsibility. The Programme of Government is vague and departmental, never mind party political pressures dictate a very narrow focus for most Ministers.

The reason for this is found in both how the Executive is formed and in how power is allocated in Northern Ireland. The combination of these two facts is a recipe for unaccountable decision making which is also ineffective. The way in which Northern Ireland legislation bestows decision making power on Ministers must also be examined.

I believe that valuable lessons can be learned from other parts of the UK. No other model could simply be transplanted to Northern Ireland because of our unique circumstances but whether it is in Wales, Scotland or local government in Great Britain they have arrangements which ensure accountability and effective decision making.

Much of the public debate on the Belfast Agreement has been characterised by oversimplification and an inadequate understanding of the nature of the institutions. I believe that this has been one of the most fundamental impediments to a realisation that change needs to take place.

The allocation of Departmental responsibilities is really only one step more advanced than a lottery with powers devolved to the Ministers and not to the Assembly.

The fact that powers are devolved to Departments in Northern Ireland and not the Assembly (as in Wales) or Ministers as a whole (as in Scotland) is a function of history. This was perfectly natural for arrangements which were based on a Westminster style Cabinet-style Government like the old Stormont Parliament but does not work where the Assembly can not overrule a Minister or collective cabinet responsibility exists. Collective Cabinet responsibility is simply not a political possibility in a system of government which is based on an involuntary coalition.

Equally the size of government in Northern Ireland is much too large. There is no practical reason to have an Assembly with 108 Members or to have 11 Government Departments. Indeed it is difficult to see that the Civic Forum has contributed anything of note during its entire existence. These are all questions which need to be examined in any new negotiations after an election.

It is critical that any settlement in Northern Ireland provides for stable government. A form of government whose success depends on a particular outcome at an election or the good behaviour of the parties will not survive in the longer term. It is a recipe for disaster. The Independent Monitoring Commission is no answer to this problem. For five years the government took no action against Sinn Fein even in terms of referring it to the Assembly why then should we have any confidence that they would in the future. The solution is to create institutions which can survive inevitable difficulties not to hope that such difficulties do not arise.

In 1998 the main priority seemed to be to create a form of Government on which all the pro agreement parties could agree. This time we must create a system which will work.

It is manifestly obvious that the Belfast Agreement has not delivered this. Four suspensions in three years and the absence of devolution for the past year is the clearest evidence of this possible. Ultimately due to the nature of the institutions created by the Belfast Agreement they will always be susceptible to collapse following an election or misbehaviour of individual political parties. This is no basis for stable or sustainable government. The institutions must be sufficiently robust to survive regardless of any election result or paramilitary activity.

The Belfast Agreement was created on the basis of trust between the parties. This was another fundamental mistake. When that trust broke down even between the pro agreement parties the institutions collapsed. Only a system which is not based on trust can be guaranteed to survive. Indeed genuine trust is much more likely to be built in such an environment. Where no genuine trust does exist a clear understanding of the rules and penalties for a breach of the rules must. The ambiguity of the Belfast Agreement was heralded as a positive feature in 1998 but now it is clear that this ambiguity has been the source of many of the problems which have occurred. In any new settlement the terms must be clear and easily understood.

It is also critical that any new settlement will last. One does not need to be an anti agreement unionist to realise that the Belfast Agreement has not delivered effective government. By learning from the failures of the current arrangements I believe that a better form of government can develop, one that can provide stable lasting devolution.

The only obstacle to progress is the irrational attachment many of the parties have to the Belfast Agreement. Elections do however provide the opportunity for the people of Northern Ireland to have their say. We shall seek a mandate for change. I hope when the elections are over we can get beyond the mantra of the Agreement is the agenda and the agenda is the agreement and look to create a lasting settlement which we can all support."