Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): We welcome Claire Hanna, the leader of the SDLP, to the Committee this morning. How are you?

Ms Claire Hanna (SDLP): I am well, thank you.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): That is good. Thank you for joining us and for your time this morning. You have 10 minutes to present to the Committee, but you do not have to take all of those 10 minutes if you do not need to. We will then move to questions from members. We have received your written evidence as well.

Ms Hanna: I always think that I will never take 10 minutes, and then you have to wrestle me down after 12.

Thank you very much; I am glad of the invitation. Your inquiry is timely, and I am glad that you are doing it. I respect the work of the Committee, which builds on the work that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee did at my initiation in 2022 and 2023 and on the work of the Oireachtas Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement in the summer of 2021. I say that for two reasons. One is to reinforce the point that it has been a long process. There has been an understanding of the weaknesses in the system for a long time. Secondly, to reiterate the respect that I have for the process. I have been clear that I do not think that this Committee on its own will land the issue and get consensus. That is not to denigrate the work that you are doing, but, if two other Committees have not moved it along sufficiently and if the party leaders, having met the Secretary of State yesterday, were unable to arrive at a final point, it is unfair and unrealistic to imply that this Committee will do that all by itself.

It is clear to the vast majority of people that things are not working here. Confidence is ebbing away in terms of the public's belief in devolution in a wider sense but also in what we do in this Building and in the outcomes from it. Every party knows that, and they have acknowledged inadequacies at different times, right back to when Mark Durkan coined the phrase "ugly scaffolding". Different parties have at different times presented potential solutions. I know as well that no party will be able to design it exactly the way it wants and, indeed, that Standing Orders and the structures and procedures in strand one themselves do not resolve political challenges.

From my evidence, you will be aware of the SDLP's broad position, which is, one, that the agreement was designed to evolve, and those provisions were in it. It has changed on a number of occasions, the most significant of those being the St Andrews Agreement 20 years ago next month. It was a fairly closed, two-party, two-Government process that did not have recourse to the public or the wider party political system. We will probably go into that. I am not a big fan of the changes that were made then. There was the creation of an Opposition through John McCallister's Bill, which was done on the Floor of the Assembly, with give and take, amendments and wider democratic engagement. We then had 'New Decade, New Approach' and the Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Act 2022 (MEPOC), which was a combination of a talks process — a bounce by the UK and Irish Governments together — and Westminster legislation. The agreement does change, and I like to talk about the Good Friday Agreement not as something that we take down from the mantelpiece at key anniversaries and admire and marvel at but as a toolkit to help us to get through the political and public policy challenges of the day. I do not believe that those in our parties who were so involved in the negotiation — those who are alive and those who are dead — would tolerate the situation that we are in now, when outcomes are so poor. I think we are in the last chance saloon. The public will not tolerate another collapse and another long period of suspension.

Broadly, the SDLP supports a two-step process: "keyhole surgery", which is a phrase that we have coined, in order to stabilise the patient, get confidence and the process out of intensive care and into a functioning reality and then the creation of space for a deeper examination. That examination will not be one that goes on for ever, in which every concept under the sun is on the table but one in which we can tease out the longer-term functioning.

The first of our three initial proposals — as I said, we have supported, initiated and suggested others — is about electing the Speaker on a supermajority. The key point is having a majority that will ensure that no one party is allowed to prevent the Assembly from meeting to elect a Speaker and from vindicating the mandates of those from all parties who were elected. It is clear that that proposal would have no negative impact on any community. The supermajority of two thirds is not a figure that we have pulled out of nowhere; it exists elsewhere in the agreement as, for example, the threshold for calling an election. The second proposal is a reversal of the St Andrews vetoes — the ability of parties with three Ministers to prevent issues from reaching the Executive and to allow issues to be blocked at the Executive — which are, clearly, a pre-emptive veto on furthering many issues. The third is the synchronisation of the titles of the First Ministers, which would restore a sense of joint endeavour. Ideally, there would be a reversion to the initial agreement's conception of how those offices would be nominated, but, primarily, the titles would be synchronised to reflect after this mandate, when the parties that have achieved their mandates legitimately and democratically have had them vindicated, the fact that the offices are coequal. That would allow elections to focus on the everyday rather than just the sense of them as a contest to a finishing line.

That is an initial summary of our position, and I look forward to engaging with you.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Thank you; I appreciate that. Ten gold stars for coming in under 10 minutes.

Ms Hanna: Thank you. Can I save it for later?

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): We appreciate your time today. I will come to questions as members indicate, but, first, you talked about a two-step approach to how this could be implemented or how reforms could happen. I noted that, in your written submission, you propose implementing reforms via:

Obviously, as part of reform, you need consensus from across nationalist, unionist and other, but will involving the Irish Government make getting buy-in from unionists easier or harder?

Ms Hanna: Well, yes. I have spoken about the ways in which this cat has been skinned before — the different ways in which we have arrived at the changes to date, which have been a mixture. Yesterday, we had a round table with a representative of the UK Government. He, we and, I am sure, others have been in dialogue with the Irish Government as well. I believe in parity of esteem. I believe in partnership in what we do in this Building, in strand one and in the agreement in general. Those two Governments are co-guarantors. It does not make a lot of sense to pretend that there is no involvement, but yesterday showed that we can have a discussion. Broadly, as I understand it, the position of the Irish Government is that reform is necessary, and I do not believe that they would stand in the way.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): They may have said that reform is necessary, but do you not accept that it could be and is perceived as an attack on the constitutional position of Northern Ireland through interference in strand one affairs?

Ms Hanna: I appreciate that you are asking the questions and I am just answering them. If I was asking them, I would ask if you genuinely feel that it is an attack on the constitutional position to acknowledge the decades-long process of cooperation, the fact that this place is British and Irish and that hundreds of thousands of citizens look to the Irish Government. This is a little bit of an example of some of the issue that we are trying to address. We do not want to flounder in the everyday on our constitutional preferences and differences. I respect yours, and I assume that you respect mine. As I say, we are seeking to get things done. We want to get an outcome, we want to move things on and we do not want to talk in circles. We are a pragmatic party, and we look forward to making progress. Yesterday, in terms of the people in the room, a process with the UK Government was progress.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I am interested, too, in decisions being taken by supermajority. When we looked at the Belfast Agreement in 1998, taking key decisions by supermajority was not viewed as acceptable for many issues. What has changed?

Ms Hanna: I picked the figure that I did precisely because it is in the original agreement. If it is sufficient consensus — the supermajority with the two thirds — to collapse or dissolve the Assembly and enter an election period, that is a logical mirror to establishing the Assembly. More widely — I am open to correction — I have not heard any argument that can really demonstrate how the existence of an Assembly — not powers to legislate or spending powers but the existence of an Assembly — can be injurious to one community or another. In all the many stops and starts that we have had, which have been profoundly damaging to public services and public confidence, I do not see how removing the Assembly and gagging all Members on all issues has furthered that or furthered the interests of any community. It is not a concept that is alien to the Good Friday Agreement. That figure and concept are in the original founding 1998 agreement, and therefore it is an appropriate target.

Mrs Guy: Thank you, Claire, for your evidence. We are probably on the same page, certainly with regard to the rationale for reform. We have worked collegially on the Committee to bring good evidence. I take your point that it is not going to get here, but it has helped to keep a spotlight and focus on it that otherwise would have been lost.

Our two parties have short-term proposals and longer-term proposals that we see as necessary. One that you have prioritised is a veto over the election of the Speaker but not of Executive formation. Why is that not in your priorities? At the end of the day, without the Executive, all the Assembly can really do is talk. It can debate motions, which you guys have been critical of. I think that we all share the frustration about non-binding motions, but, without the Executive and the power to legislate and agree a Budget, we are just talking to one another.

Ms Hanna: It is pragmatism. I discussed that with your party leader yesterday, and I think that we arrived at the same place. As I say, I have been campaigning actively on the issue for at least five or six years and will be at it for five or six more if we seek to get every thing on our shopping list before we get consensus. That is a challenging issue. There are proposals out there that I support, but, if you will allow me to develop the analogy, it is about moving from intensive care hopefully into a rehab phase when we have that done. That is a necessity as well.

It is a far from ideal scenario to have an Assembly without Executive power, but we know, after decades of history and the stops and starts of this place, that it is easy to collapse it but harder to get it back up and running. Also, it is more likely to establish an Executive from the rhythm, routine, discipline and collectiveness of having an Assembly and a place where we meet and engage. It would be easier to re-establish an Executive and have the appropriate talks, whether they be about a Programme for Government or about this, if the Assembly were meeting as a body, as I said, than it would be if there was a vacuum.

Mrs Guy: Is it your sense that the public would be satisfied with that? The DUP and Sinn Féin have used those vetoes to block Executive formation. At the end of the day, it is an impediment. People worry about whether this place is functioning: would having just a shadow Assembly and a talking shop regain people's confidence?

Ms Hanna: No, I do not think that it would. However, it would clearly allow parties to express their frustrations about that issue and many others. It would also allow some degree of scrutiny and exploration of the issues that were being made worse by the absence of an Executive. I do not think that people would be satisfied, and I would not either; we do not want to have an empty [Inaudible.]

I say this with the deepest of respect and an understanding of the complexities: sometimes, people feel that that is what we have — an Assembly that talks about issues but does not do issues. That is far from an optimum situation, but I am reminded all the time of a phrase that John Hume used: if you ask for all or nothing, you will usually end up with nothing. There are many bigger-ticket items that you and I would wish to explore, but, if we attempt to climb that mountain when there is nothing approaching consensus and there are more fundamental changes to the process, I or somebody else will be back in front of you in six years' time still trying to crack that nut.

Mrs Guy: I agree that the St Andrews veto is a massive issue. You have talked about removing the mechanism that allows single parties to prevent items from coming to the Executive. How, specifically, would you do that? What is your proposal on that?

Ms Hanna: It is a combination. It is custom and practice, really, I suppose, and procedure and perhaps Standing Orders in the Executive, rather than a legislative enhancement. In the main, it would be via agreement by the parties that smaller parties would be allowed to progress issues and a commitment not to suffocate issues or prevent their discussion. If the provision is there, parties will use it. If the provision is no longer there and there is an agreement that that is not an appropriate way to do business because it strangles progress, times out issues and wastes a lot of time, agreement can be made that that is not how it rolls.

Mrs Guy: We have a specific way to do that reform that aligns with our reforms around the petition of concern. There are three specific thresholds. That is the threshold that you have to meet to bring that [Inaudible.]

Ms Hanna: It is in section 28 of the ministerial code. I am channelling my inner Mark Durkan.

Mrs Guy: Is that something that you see as a way forward: a specific way to achieve that? We all agree that it needs to change, and I understand what you say about the rationale and the need for a mechanism. Would you endorse the mechanism that you would choose?

Ms Hanna: I think so. As I said, the main thing is an acceptance from the parties that it is thwarting progress and that, as I said, it is not an appropriate way to go — it is not a tool that should be used — via agreement and the ministerial code.

Mrs Guy: This is the last question from me. When we sign into the Assembly, we are all forced to designate. I chose to designate as "United Community". Obviously, I do not identify as "unionist" or "nationalist". That excludes my vote from any cross-community vote. I am disenfranchised, as are all the voters of all the parties that designate as "other" in some way. Is there ever a scenario in which that is acceptable?

Ms Hanna: On the three occasions on which I was lucky enough to sign in here, I did so as "Social democrat, nationalist", reflecting key aspects of my political identity. Being from a party that often gets put in boxes, I understand the frustration and the evolution. I do not want our entire political system to be bound by people's national identity, because I realise that that is only one part of it. The making of sheep and goats and the prioritising of that is part of the problem.

I am also realistic: we have a continuing contention over the constitutional future of this place. Stormont ticking over is not the limit of my ambition or that of my party. We believe in building a new Ireland. We believe in addressing people's needs in the here and now, that this is the place in which to do that and, indeed, that a functioning Northern Ireland is the best pathway to a new Ireland. We do not pretend, therefore, that those parts of people's identities do not exist or that there will not be times when it is appropriate to understand the balance on a particular issue.

I suppose that some of the proposals that we make and support dial down the salience of designation. I think of it as being a bit like the way in which some of us think, "Well, I don't see colour". That does not mean that there are not differences in race within communities or that there are not systemic challenges in vindicating people's rights. For example, both our parties support an evolution of the use of the petition of concern — in fact, a reversion to the original purpose of the petition of concern. There may be times when that will relate to issues of national identity, and there will be mechanisms to ensure that we get consensus on those issues. Some things, such as the proposal that you just mentioned about not binding Executive formation so tightly into designations and a qualified majority voting — changing the cross-community vote and finding different mechanisms — are a way of dialling down the salience but without removing it. Much as I would like us to be further on as a society, I accept that that is still a fracture in our politics, and we cannot pretend it away.

Mrs Guy: And just —.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): We have to move on now, if you do not mind.

Mrs Guy: OK.

Mr Sheehan: Thanks for coming in, Claire. I have just one question. Many of us around the table are on the same page when it comes to reform of the institutions. There are some nuances and things that we might disagree on, but, by and large, most people agree that the institutions need to be reformed. It seems clear, however, that unionism has set its face against reform of the institutions. We all know that the main unionist party has never supported the Good Friday Agreement. Even recently, we have heard DUP Ministers say that they do not work in partnership with other Ministers in the Executive and so on — they are not there to do partnership. In the context of the main unionist party not supporting the spirit or letter of the Good Friday Agreement and having set its face against reform, what are the chances of building sustainability into the institutions?

Ms Hanna: I have concerns and have done for many years, including the 10-plus years that I was a part of this and before that when I was an observer of the different approaches, about whether people are sharing power, cooperating or furthering goals because you want to or because the law says that you have to. Sometimes we are in a different space in between. I do not think that it can be said that unionism does not support this. For example, the Assembly majorities that our party has achieved — that all of us achieved, I suppose; that the Assembly achieved— on SDLP motions over the past year on items around reform had support from the Ulster Unionists, the TUV and independent Member Claire Sugden. There is kind of on-the-board support from parts of political unionism. Indeed, for many years, the DUP talked about and furthered proposals around reform, including in its manifesto, and talked about being the party of reform, so there is understanding and acceptance of reform in there.

I accept that there is a "Not an inch" negotiating strategy at the moment, and I have said and will continue to say back to those parties, gently but at times forcefully, "Tell your electorate with a straight face that nothing needs to change up here and that things are working". We have solved bigger problems in this society. The Secretary of State has indicated that he is trying to get as much consensus as possible, but I perceive there to be a belief from the Governments that there cannot be a veto on the vetoes for evermore.

Mr Sheehan: That is fair enough. I would be a bit reluctant ever to quote the TUV as supporting any party policy, but —.

Ms Hanna: You referred to unionism, and I pointed out that two unionist parties and an independent unionist are on the record in the Assembly as supporting reform.

Mr Sheehan: If there is any party that does not support the Good Friday Agreement, it is the TUV, you know? I suppose —.

Ms Hanna: I am merely telling you what happened in votes in the Assembly.

Mr Sheehan: The point that I am making is this. We have seen the shift to the right by the DUP. You have Jamie Bryson and Jim Allister swinging it round by the tail and so on. In that context, if nothing changes, how sustainable can the institutions be?

Ms Hanna: I say this with respect and without trying to sound like a Pollyanna. I agree that there are enormous, fundamental and existential challenges: the unwillingness of parties to operate in a spirit of cooperation and the reversion on big political issues. Your party was not that supportive of reform until very recently, and I think that you have read the room.

Mr Sheehan: We have been talking about it for years, Claire.

Ms Hanna: Well, I do not know. I am delighted to see —.

Mr Sheehan: Matthew has asked dozens of questions —

Ms Hanna: I am delighted to see —

Mr Sheehan: — of Michelle O'Neill, and she has always given the answer that we are up for reform.

Ms Hanna: — the growing consensus, but this has been an evolution for a lot of parties. Indeed, people characterised the SDLP as opposing reform: we just were not for wholesale striking out. As I said, it is 20 years since the phrase "ugly scaffolding" was invented, and different people have sought different changes. To borrow a phrase, a lot of people are on a journey, and I hope that the DUP is.

Again, this is about the public. This is about how people experience the Assembly, the things that it does and the things that it does not do. I hope that we can arrive at the maximum consensus for the changes. As I said, people are moving their positions as we speak or over a period of months and years, and I hope that we can go further in that.

Mr Sheehan: OK. Thanks for that.

Ms Ennis: Thanks, Claire, for being here this morning. I know that you have been scathing of the Committee, so I appreciate your being here. You have referenced the Committee's work a few times throughout discussions on reform. I appreciate that you have given up your time to us this morning.

The Committee gets a bad rep, and we have to be clear: it is not the Committee's job to introduce legislation on reform. That is not what the Committee does, and nobody is under any illusion about that. It is the place where we thrash out ideas, put meat on the bones and see the colour of other people's money. That work should not be discounted.

We talked a lot around Executive vetoes. I am not referring to the formation of the Executive, because that is where we have common ground, I think. The blocking mechanism has been highlighted, and no one would disagree that that has been problematic. No one would disagree that that has negative consequences. You touched on this in your conversation with Michelle. We still have not fleshed out what would replace that. I know that you talked about goodwill and agreement, but, following on from what Pat said, that is not often in supply here.

On that and the issue of Ministers' ability to refer contentious issues, given that we do not have a bill of rights to underpin ministerial decision-making, how do we prevent a single Minister from pursuing what could be perceived as damaging policy changes? What mechanism do you see that could replace that? I have not heard a concrete proposal. What we have is certainly not ideal, and nobody would disagree with that. However, it is the only thing that we have in the absence of the goodwill and of a bill of rights to underpin the decision-making. How do you see that playing out?

Ms Hanna: Thank you. I reiterate that I appreciate the invitation. I esteem the Committee. I know that it probably was not everybody's desired outcome to do the inquiry, but I appreciate that it is being done in good faith. As I said, I have been through two Committee experiences, an Oireachtas Committee and a Westminster Committee, addressing the issues. That is why I say that the Committee itself will not arrive at the end point, as do you. You said that it is not your job to do it. I was never on the Committee because, in the four-plus years that I was an Assembly Member, the Assembly functioned for less than nine months. I would have liked to be a part of it, but I was not given the opportunity, because the Assembly was collapsed. My perspective is from that point.

It is not for me to lay down the law on how it should be done because it is about negotiation and the art of the possible, but there is the concept of opposition to a policy always expressing itself as a veto and, in that case, a pre-emptive veto. That is not to say that, perhaps, parties will not wish to design in a veto at a certain point. We also continue to have the petition of concern mechanism for genuinely grievous and injurious policies. However, a pre-emptive veto that means that an issue cannot even be discussed is surely fundamentally undemocratic. We have to believe in general in our ability to engage with and persuade one another. I am not suggesting that that always bears the fruit that we want, but, if we say that the only way to prevent policies that we do not like is to just not talk about that issue and pretend that it did not happen, we are on a hiding to nothing. I do not see how we will do the bigger-ticket change that you and I want to do if our approach to difficult issues is to just not talk about them. We are open-minded, as I explained in response to your colleague, about exactly how we do it, but the first step is agreeing that a system in which issues can be suppressed and blacked out before they have even had an airing by legitimately elected Ministers is not an appropriate way to further business. That would be a good start.

Ms Ennis: I do not disagree with a lot of what you said. The system was designed to protect minority rights, and it has been abused.

Ms Hanna: There are other mechanisms that we would absolutely endorse to do that.

Ms Ennis: It is an important point to make. I do not have the answers either, but given the fact —.

Ms Hanna: Can we agree, however, that minority rights have been thwarted by matters that have not been able to come out of the Executive and have not been spoken about? That approach has been deployed on numerous issues. The rights of communities and individuals and, indeed, environmental rights and protections are being suppressed through those rights-protecting mechanisms in the same way as the petition of concern, which was a mechanism to support and vindicate rights, was, at times, used to suppress them. We all agreed that that was not the right way to go forward, and we all worked hard to change that.

Ms Ennis: Absolutely. That is what I said at the start. Nobody would say that it does not have negative consequences, but, unfortunately, at times, it is the only instrument that we have. I am not expecting you to have all the answers. I do not.

Ms Hanna: I have some.

Ms Ennis: Nobody around the table has all the answers. We know from our meeting yesterday that those answers will be hard to come by. Given that, do you not agree that we need to have a serious conversation about it and that rushing into something and removing a mechanism without having properly fleshed out how it will be replaced is not how to do that work?

Ms Hanna: When a policy reaches the Floor of the Assembly, the ultimate protection is the democratic wishes of the wider membership of the Assembly. I do not know every twist and turn of the Department of Education's Bill before the summer recess — in fact, I should not give the analogy because I cannot remember — but I think that there was some back and forth, with some saying, "Why did your party allow it to leave the Executive when it would cause injury to part of the teaching workforce?". Your party argued that it did so because it knew that the Bill would ultimately be caught on the Floor of the Assembly. I suppose that that is the type of scenario that I am talking about. I am open to correction if I have misremembered that. It was a few months ago, and I was not minutely following it.

We have discussed some of the many ways that you can achieve a similar outcome. One of those is allowing the issue to be discussed. We have to believe that, sometimes, there are possibilities to find compromise and consensus when something is discussed among peers, adults and fellow elected representatives, and, if an issue were as egregious and damaging as you say, you would imagine that the wider Assembly would catch and prevent it from progressing.

It is not just me; you will find that a lot of rights-based organisations — in fact, the primary rights-based organisations and coalitions that are involved in the like of the bill of rights — have explicitly said that the St Andrews veto is a major problem and a major reason for the failure of progress. To my knowledge, apart from perhaps the Sign Language Act (Northern Ireland) 2026, which was a positive though long-awaited development, the Assembly has never brought forward a piece of equality legislation. That fact is a shocking indictment of devolution and the democratic outcomes and possibilities that the Good Friday Agreement created.

Ms Ennis: I know that you want to move on, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Very briefly, please.

Ms Ennis: I am not arguing against it. I am saying that we have not heard —

Ms Hanna: We have.

Ms Ennis: — what could replace that.

Ms Hanna: We have.

Ms Ennis: We have taken evidence from those groups, and we have not heard what would replace that.

Ms Hanna: Can I answer you? I am telling you that what would replace it is ministerial colleagues discussing an issue —.

Ms Ennis: You said "goodwill" and "agreement".

Ms Hanna: Well, hang on. Every day —.

Ms Ennis: I think that we need more safeguards than goodwill and agreement.

Ms Hanna: We have safeguards every day. We can talk through and negotiate the appropriate things to replace it, but saying, "Until we can legislate for every possible scenario and disagreement, let's just not talk about it and hope that the problem goes away" is not a good starting point.

Ms Ennis: We said, "Don't rush into it", not "Don't talk about it".

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Sorry. We will move on now. Thank you.

Miss McIlveen: Thank you, Claire. I want to know what "consensus" means to you. We have heard terms such as "broad consensus" and "absolute consensus", but what does "consensus" mean to you in this situation?

Ms Hanna: My starting point is that veto is not the only way to advance or disadvance things. The culture that we have developed here of, "I don't like it, and my party doesn't like it, so it can't happen" is clearly stymieing lots of progress. I spoke to Mr Sheehan about the growing coalition of support for reform. For example, I do not think that you can say that unionists do not want to reform the Assembly, because, as I indicated, unionist parties and independent unionists have supported reform. Your party is on the record as saying that it supports reform. As I understand it, your party's position at the moment is, "We don't think there need to be any changes, and we're not talking about it". In any democratic society, even one that has such complex arrangements as we do, that is not a starting point. I am glad that we are trying to get into some of the detail. If everybody outside the DUP seems to acknowledge that there are flaws, it is not good enough to say that nothing can ever change because a party that used to say that it wanted really seismic change no longer wants change, so we cannot talk about it. Where exactly does that land?

Obviously, we went through a lot of that during the Brexit process with regard to what was and was not consent. The people here and the UK Parliament wanted protections, and your party said, "Well, that is not good enough, because we do not want protections". That is not, unfortunately, how the world works. We are at the early part of a formal process here, and I am hopeful that all the parties can engage and feel that they are getting something out of the process. Hopefully, that "something" is better outcomes from the Assembly. However, at the moment, it is being expressed as, "We don't want to talk about it, so nobody's allowed to talk about it", and that does not represent either consent or consensus to me.

Miss McIlveen: So you are content to work and move at pace without the largest unionist party.

Ms Hanna: Again, it is not me asking the questions, but do you think that everything is working fine and nothing needs to change?

Miss McIlveen: I am not answering the questions here.

Ms Hanna: OK. The process that we are now in will give space for the DUP to explain at what point it stopped believing that reform was necessary, when it has manifestoes currently online that talk about being the party of reform and that advance pretty substantial changes, such as the end of mandatory coalition. If we got clarity on at what point that ended and whether the DUP thinks that everything is going OK, that would be a starting point.

We are in a discussion, but, a little like the broad agreement in society here that, for example, we could not have a hard and unmitigated Brexit — I appreciate that your party disagreed — when the consensus came from all other parts, we reluctantly had to find different ways to move forward. We are a party of achieving as much consensus and dialogue as possible, but we are dealing with a society in which there has been a veto culture for decades and politics being about what you can block rather than what you can achieve. That is one of the things that we seek to move away from with this process.

Miss McIlveen: Are you content for it to be a precondition for other discussions?

Ms Hanna: No. I do not completely know what you mean, but we made it clear to the Secretary of State that we do not believe that the Budget should have been held to ransom, given the damage that that has done and the harm that has already been caused to public services. Even if the Budget is agreed in short order — I hope that it will be — we do not believe in holding funding for public services to ransom in that regard. I am not saying that the Budget should not be agreed without progress on this, but the two issues are intrinsically linked, and it would be foolish not to discuss them in parallel.

Clearly, you are as aware as I am of the UK's economic position and the budgetary position of the UK Government. I am a Westminster MP, as many of your colleagues are, and I see how many mouths there are to feed. I see the political salience of this region. I imagine that it would be a lot easier for the Secretary of State to make the case to the Treasury and to his colleagues for a fairer funding package if there were a sense of change and self-help coming from this region. Some progress on the reform stuff would help him do that. It is not my political project to secure the Union — it is absolutely not — but one of the fast ways to lose it is to look completely intransigent and unreformable and for this region to be seen by MPs across the political spectrum in England, Scotland and Wales as a mess and fundamentally uninterested in helping itself. That is how it looks at the moment.

Mr O'Toole: Thanks, Claire. You said that Stormont is in the last chance saloon and that not reforming this place is probably a way to expedite questions about the constitutional future, perhaps in a less ordered way than those of us who want a new Ireland might want. Is the reason for the SDLP's phased approach that your party believes that we need to have some stabilisation ahead of what could be an unknown scenario after the next election and that things such as changing the threshold for electing a Speaker might more surely enable there to be at least some devolved political structure after the election, if it appears unlikely or uncertain, at least, that an Executive could be formed?

Ms Hanna: I thank my esteemed party colleague for asking the hardest question of the day. That is how we roll.

You are correct to say that we are anxious. I do not want to talk it into existence, but any reader of politics here or anybody who has engaged in the debates and turned on the radio will know that there are stability questions, partly because of the tone, tenor and content and partly because of history and all the times that the Assembly has stopped and started. Yes, as a party, we have anxieties about where the Assembly is going and about the willingness of parties to be in government and do the things, make the compromises and take the responsibility that that involves, because — I say this respectfully to those in the Executive — we have not seen that much evidence of a willingness to do those things. We can all see scenarios on the other side of an election that might lead to another period in which one party or another does not want to go into the Executive and might throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are two vetoes — the veto on the formation of an Executive and the veto on the formation of an Assembly — and we end up with nothing. History shows us that it takes two or three years to re-establish it. That is why we propose a phased approach on the areas where there is broad, not final, consensus.

As I said, I am very live to that, but, where there is public acceptance of the things that need to change, I am anxious about there being a long, open-ended process. People said this in their public comments, so I am not betraying the meeting that we had yesterday by saying that we were talking about the 30th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement, the implication being that the wider reforms could come in two years. That is a long time. The public would not suspend their disbelief about how this place goes or about a collapse of the Executive until 2028. That is why we propose to do it in a phased way: what is possible now — the lower-hanging fruit and the areas where we have agreement — and then a wider sense.

You are also correct to say that we believe, as you know, in a new Ireland but in achieving it in an ordered and planned way. We all know what the most recent collapse felt like: the real sense that this place did not work, could not work and did not want to work. That is one of the reasons why interest has grown in a political future that has open access to a dynamic economy and has a society that handles change well and values the arts — that is an issue that we are exploring today — but where people's votes mean something and people have agency over political decisions that affect their lives. That is not how people feel here. One of the reasons why I, you and many others seek a different constitutional future is that it does not feel as if politics here gets things done in the way that it does in the Republic and other places. That sense will only accelerate if we enter another collapse.

If I were a scorched-earth person, I would say, "Yeah, sure. Keep going the way that you are going. Run this place into the ground. Complete the sense that this region cannot work, will not work and does not want to work". In some ways, that would get you faster to constitutional change. However, we are a party that wants to do that properly. We want people to feel confident when that time comes, and we are fundamentally interested in people's needs in the here and now. They need political parties to take decisions about their lives and their public services. We want that to be done in a way that is consistent with the Good Friday Agreement, with participation from as many political perspectives as possible, and done by people here and not people in London.

Mr O'Toole: Michelle raised the question that, if you change the election of the Speaker and that enables you to elect in the absence of agreement on the formation of an Executive — hopefully, there will be agreement after the election, but, if there were no agreement and the threshold to elect the Speaker had changed, unlike in 2023 and 2022, when Mike Nesbitt and Patsy McGlone had a supermajority to become Speaker but the DUP decided that it did not want an Executive and blocked people from fulfilling their mandates, particularly many of those in the Alliance Party who had been elected for the first time in 2022 — indeed, obviously —.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Matthew, can you come to your question, please? I am conscious of the time, and our second witness is waiting outside. We have another member who wants in quickly.

Mr O'Toole: I will. Sorry. I dwelled too long on the DUP's priors. I know that we had established that, Chair. I will come to the question.

It would just be a talking shop; there would be no Executive; it would not be able to initiate legislation. By the way, I do not think that anybody thinks that that would be ideal. Some people talk about the Prior Assembly from the 1980s. Might that create a context in which the public say, "You guys are collecting a wage. What are you actually doing?"? Would it put pressure on those of us who turn up and take the wage to form a Government? Might that be one argument for ensuring that it does not completely fall apart?

Ms Hanna: Let me be clear: we are not trying to achieve a scenario where the Assembly just meets, hangs around and is a talking shop. We are trying to graduate to a process that can have proper democratic accountability. That is why we combine it with, for example, changes to the titling of the joint office and the veto in the Executive that has stymied so many of the progressive and positive things that people could believe in. We are not trying to achieve that outcome, but we think that something is better than nothing. The Assembly could walk so that, ultimately, the Executive could run. Mandates can be vindicated, and people who made the difficult choice to run for election can at least sign in, represent their constituents, make their case and scrutinise those who are holding power down and, ultimately, those who will be making decisions. It is far from my desired outcome, but, if you ask for all or nothing, you will end up with nothing. If we wait until I get everything that I am happy with, Michelle gets everything that she is happy with, Sinéad gets everything that she is happy with and Deborah gets everything that she is happy with, we will be here in another 28 years.

Mr O'Toole: It is a starting point for more reform next year, ideally.

Ms Hanna: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Carál, I will let you in very briefly.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I have a quick question. Claire, even, I am sure, your esteemed colleague Matthew —.

Ms Hanna: Why are you laughing?

Mr O'Toole: Esteemed by you too, Carál, no doubt.

Ms Hanna: Absolutely.

Ms Ní Chuilín: The issue is that every party is for the election of the Speaker by a majority vote. The joint First Minister stuff is already there, and, for me, it was just tinkering. The more substantive issue is that there needs to be proper reform. How will that happen? I will not be as verbose as you and your esteemed colleague, but you are right: you can get something and move on. However, before the next Assembly election and the return of the new mandate, what is your desire in trying to move the reform process on, so that any new Speaker is elected by a majority vote? It is a practical question.

Ms Hanna: You might think that the First Minister thing is tinkering, and that is why I was surprised at your party's reaction against the motion. I counted dozens of Facebook posts in quite extreme language about how my colleagues and I were siding with extreme loyalism. It was tinkering that your esteemed former colleague, Martin McGuinness, committed to. It was not an idea that we picked up out of nowhere, and it was a reversion to the intent of the Good Friday Agreement. Tinkering or not, it is a legitimate proposal.

My understanding is that it would take a small change to the Northern Ireland Act to change that threshold from whatever the wording is currently to a similar threshold to that which is in the Good Friday Agreement for the dissolution of the Assembly, namely the two-thirds majority. That could be done relatively swiftly. I hope that parties will explain why they think that that is injurious to any one community, and then maybe we could talk about a way around it. I am fairly confident that it would pass the sniff test and get endorsement from people here, from Westminster, where the Act has to be changed, and from colleagues in the Dáil, because I think that people understand the urgency.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Thank you for your time. We appreciate it.

Ms Hanna: Thanks a million.