HEADLINE STORY

MAGINNESS: SF DID SHADOW ASSEMBLY DEAL WITH DUP

SDLP Assembly Group chair Alban Maginness said the party has always been determined to test the Secretary of State on his commitment to listen to the Assembly - and it is hypocritical for Sinn Fein to attack it when they negotiated the Shadow Assembly with the DUP.

Mr Maginness stated:
“The SDLP’s over-riding priority is to get an Executive formed and the Good Friday Agreement up and running. We have always been clear that we have no interest in a toothless Assembly or a DUP talking shop.

“The British Government has said that it will “take account” of the views of the Assembly. We will test them on that. If the Secretary of State listens to the united view of the Assembly on matters like water rates, then well and good. But if he ignores it, then he will have proved that this Assembly is a talking shop - and there is no point in the SDLP participating in such debates. That is the way to put it up to the British Government - and has been the SDLP’s consistent line.

“It is hypocritical of Sinn Fein to attack the SDLP when they were the ones who signed up on the dotted line for a Shadow Assembly in the flawed Comprehensive Agreement that they did with the DUP. Gerry Adams even called the Comprehensive Agreement a “remarkable achievement” even after Peter Robinson had made public that it was supplemented by over 100 side deals and secret understandings.

“Nor can Sinn Fein pretend that the deal they did in 2004 is irrelevant. After all, the Secretary of State today promised new legislation to implement it.

“Sinn Fein cannot wash their hands any longer of the bad deal that they did with the DUP in 2004. They must make clear that they no longer support it and limit the damage done - or else take the blame not only for the Shadow Assembly but also for further British legislation to damage the Good Friday Agreement.”

NOTES TO EDITORS

1. Paragraph 6 of the so-called Comprehensive Agreement of 8 December 2004 negotiated by Sinn Fein and the DUP states that:

“To allow the parties to prepare adequately for the re-establishment of the political institutions, the British Government will also introduce legislation in December to allow the formation of a shadow Assembly.”

2. The DUP in the Comprehensive Agreement texts agreed to sit in the Executive with all other parties “following confirmation in reports from the IMC and the IICD that IRA paramilitary activity of all kinds has ended.” Until they were satisfied on this, either the Shadow Assembly would have continued.

3. On 10 December 2004, Peter Robinson issued a press release stating that:
“The Comprehensive Agreement is merely the core of the proposals which we have accepted but is also augmented by over a hundred clarificatory answers, notes and letters.”

See www.peterrobinson.org
4. Despite this, Gerry Adams maintained in an article in the Irish News on 20 December 2004 that the Comprehensive Agreement was “a remarkable achievement.”

5. The Comprehensive Agreement also:

- threatened the SDLP with automatic exclusion from office;
- gave the DUP new vetoes over who nationalist ministers could be;
- gave the DUP vetoes over the executive authority of ministers;
- gave no new North South bodies or areas of cooperation.

6. Speaking to the Irish Times today, Secretary of State Hain confirmed his intention to legislate for the Comprehensive Agreement-

“I think that there will have to be some legislative amendments to [the Good Friday Agreement] in terms of Strands One to Three in the sort of territory there was in the comprehensive proposals of 2004.”

Generic Statements

MAGINNESS – UUP ERVINE MOVE HIGHLIGHTS DOUBLE STANDARD

Chair of the SDLP Assembly Group Alban Maginness MLA has reacted to the news that David Ervine is to join the UUP Assembly group.
Mr Maginness stated:

“The bottom line is that the is UVF not on ceasefire. There is a complete double standard at the heart of the matter. The fact that the UUP either haven’t seen this or are simply refusing to acknowledge it is a damning indictment of their attitude and hypocritical in the extreme. Unionism cannot continue to skirt around the issue or excuse the continued existence of armed loyalist groups. As the unionist communities political leadership they must actively work to ensure that loyalist paramilitary groups become a thing of the past. Short term, short sighted moves for narrow party gain do not set a good example or bring us any closer to a resolution. The UUP would do well to remember that.”

Return to Communications Page