'Contingent commitment' may be key to NI deal

The outlines of a feasible deal between the DUP and Sinn Féin are now emerging from intensive behind-the-scenes work in Dublin…

The outlines of a feasible deal between the DUP and Sinn Féin are now emerging from intensive behind-the-scenes work in Dublin and London, writes Gerry Moriarty, Northern Editor

Bertie Ahern and Tony Blair are primed to put an outline deal to Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams in Scotland next week that could work, especially with the Independent Monitoring Commission to all intents and purposes saying the IRA has ended its war and its criminality.

Now, let's be careful here, the emphasis is on "could".

The Taoiseach and British prime minister, with Peter Hain and Dermot Ahern and a small army of British and Irish officials, are fashioning a blueprint that they believe the DUP and Sinn Féin leaders could just about tolerate.

READ MORE

There could be something of a post-dated cheque about their final proposals in that they are contingent on Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams coming up to the mark.

That document can be fine-tuned or modified over Thursday and Friday at the talks in St Andrews, and indeed up to November 24th, by the parties in tandem with the governments. Its central, inescapable requirements are that Ian Paisley must sign up to powersharing with Sinn Féin and Gerry Adams must sign up to policing. But when?

That's the key issue and it's still work in progress by the governments.

And this is where the contingent element of the deal - as well as some jesuitical manoeuvring - comes into play. Whatever about the governments touting November 24th as an inflexible deadline for agreement to restore devolution, students of this process know that Dr Paisley won't lead a powersharing Executive with Martin McGuinness by that date. And neither is it likely that Mr Adams will persuade a Sinn Féin ardfheis to support the PSNI by November 24th, as he is mandated to do under party rules before Sinn Féin could join the Policing Board.

One scenario that is being seriously considered is that Dr Paisley and Mr Adams can be persuaded to make commitments on power-sharing and policing by November 24th that would not come into effect until after that date, possibly even into next year.

The deal would hinge on Dr Paisley and the other parties making a contingent commitment by November 24th to share power with the other parties, including Sinn Féin, by a specific date, perhaps in the spring of 2007. That commitment would in turn require Mr Adams to make a commitment to call an ardfheis on policing where he would actively seek party support for the PSNI.

Now they would seem huge asks of Dr Paisley especially, but also of Mr Adams. How could you expect the DUP leader to agree to enter government with Sinn Féin before, as he has promised to do, he consulted with his grassroots? Well, if it's a contingent commitment then it can happen, is the argument. Dublin has concerns about any pushing back of the November 24th deadline, but some from the London end of the equation believe an element of creative thinking may be required here.

Earlier this week, on the fringes of the Tory conference in Bournemouth, DUP deputy leader Peter Robinson set out the party's six requirements before it would consider powersharing. Firstly, he said there must be an end to IRA paramilitarism and criminality.

As far as the governments are concerned that issue is now "sorted" with yesterday's positive IMC report on the general lack of IRA activity. Even the DUP, while typically cautious, welcomed the report.

Secondly, Mr Robinson said Sinn Féin must support the rule of law. Again, Dr Paisley making a commitment to enter an Executive with Sinn Féin would hinge on Mr Adams persuading Sinn Féin to endorse policing. Mr Adams has already indicated that if there is agreement on devolution he will try to convince an ardfheis to support the PSNI.

Thirdly, Mr Robinson said there must be changes to the institutions and structure of the Belfast Agreement. These talks will lead to some modifications of the Agreement, but not to the broad architecture of the Good Friday accord.

These will cause problems but they are not insurmountable. Much of the St Andrews talks will be devoted to such issues.

The other three Robinson-enunciated demands are for a financial package, equality measures, and a "timetable and programme of work leading to devolution".

Those issues don't present a serious problem, while the basis of the contingency proposal is that all the parties, including the DUP and Dr Paisley, would make a commitment to sign up to a timetable for restoring devolution.

So, logically, the DUP-power-sharing/Sinn-Féin-policing nexus could work because the DUP requirements can and are being met, and Mr Adams has stated policing will be solved if the DUP commits itself to powersharing.

There is one unmentioned potential deal-breaker here and that's when policing and justice powers would be devolved to a Northern Executive. Sinn Féin is demanding a timeframe for such devolution, while the DUP - to protect itself from the symbolism of Sinn Féin's Gerry Kelly being a junior minister in a department of justice - wants to play it vague and long, as in accepting devolution "when the time is right".

It's a tricky issue and should feature late into the night in the St Andrews negotiations and beyond.

But equally, if Peter Robinson means what he says, and Gerry Adams means what he says, and the Doc is up for it, then a contingency deal, incorporating a time-factored implementation plan on power-sharing and policing and other matters, could be the solution.

"What's crucial here," as one senior talks insider explained, "is that the headline on November 25th is: 'It's a Deal'. That doesn't necessarily mean we will have an Executive up and running that day, but it does mean that there is a commitment to a deal by all the parties at a date thereafter." What's also crucial here is whether, should a post-dated deal be the favoured option, Dr Paisley and Mr Adams can sell it to their constituencies. You would expect difficulties and all sorts of smoke and mirrors and moments of creative ambiguity, but the bottom line is if these two leaders can't carry their people, then what hope is there for ordinary politicians leading ordinary parties?

The biggest imponderable, as usual, is Paisley himself. Is this what he wants? One minute he's publicly suggesting there is no chance of agreement or demanding repentance from the Shinners, while the next he is hinting there is hope after all.

The feedback from his meeting alone, and without note-takers, with Tony Blair in Downing Street over two weeks ago was quite positive, The Irish Times was told, and this in turn persuaded the governments to proceed with their endeavour in St Andrews.

One senior source said that privately, and behind all his bluster and equivocation, Dr Paisley has indicated this just might be the time for him to do what was previously unthinkable. He points to Dr Paisley meeting Catholic Primate Archbishop Seán Brady next Monday as a signal of a sea-change in his mindset. The caveat, that must always be entered, is that you just can never tell with Dr Paisley.

Still the source felt able to say: "If you put me up against a wall and asked me will Paisley do a deal then, yes I would have to say, 'he will'. "