Paisley Jnr's devolution 'wish-list' revealed

Senior civil servants were asked to help the Northern Ireland Office give as positive a response as possible to issues raised by the Rev Ian Paisley’s son during devolution negotiations before a key political deadline, it emerged today.

According to a letter obtained by MEP Jim Allister under the Freedom of Information Act, top civil servants in the Departments of Social Development, Enterprise, Environment, Regional Development and Culture were asked to help former NIO minister David Hanson, in advance of the November 2006 deadline for devolution, answer six constituency matters raised by Ian Paisley Junior at the St Andrews talks.

Mr Paisley, who was part of the Democratic Unionists’ talks team at St Andrews, announced his resignation as a junior minister in the Stormont power-sharing government yesterday, after a series of stories about his dealings with businessman Seymour Sweeney.

The letter from a civil servant to the permanent secretaries of five government departments listed six issues referred by the then British Prime Minister Tony Blair to Mr Hanson after they were raised by Ian Paisley Junior at St Andrews.

These included financial support for the North West 200 motorcycle race, planning approval for a development on the Galgorm Estate outside Ballymena, the resale of land in Ballee near the town, future plans for St Patrick’s Barracks in Ballymena, the development of land at the Giant’s Causeway and the upgrading of a road between Glarryford and Ballycastle.

The letter which was also circulated to the head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service Nigel Hamilton read: “The minister recognises the complexity of the issues and the significance of the due legal and administrative process attaching to most of them and therefore wishes to ensure that they are handled appropriately in line with normal procedures.

“He wishes now to provide a considered response to Ian Paisley Junior.

“This would be as positive as possible within the constraints noted earlier and explain the government’s position on each issue; indicate what we are doing or might do further to address his/his constituents’ concerns; and where there are outstanding problems or sticking points offer a meeting with ministers and/or officials to discuss these further.

“I would therefore be grateful for part-input from you as appropriate. In the case of the Giant’s Causeway it would be appreciated if DETI and DoE could agree a single composite response.”

The letter added: “The minister wishes to write (to Mr Paisley) well in advance of November 24.”

In April 2006, Mr Blair and Taoiseach Bertie Ahern set November 24 as a deadline for devolution during a visit to Armagh.

The Assembly was summoned on November 24 to see if the DUP and Sinn Féin would nominate First and Deputy First Ministers on the back of the St Andrews talks.

However, the Assembly proceedings were disrupted and Stormont was evacuated after loyalist Michael Stone caused a security alert.

Devolution was not restored until May last year after a deal was reached between the DUP and Sinn Féin following intensive talks last March.

Jim Allister said the letter to the permanent secretaries showed the British government believed the resolution of the issues Mr Paisley raised at St Andrews would play an important part in shaping the DUP’s attitude towards the restoration of devolution.

“It would appear to me that instead of the DUP being focussed on securing the best possible deal for the people of Northern Ireland and addressing the many shortcomings of the St Andrews Agreement surrounding the removal of terrorist structures, the absurdity of mandatory coalition, the joint office of First and Deputy First Minister, the IRA’s ill-gotten gains, the government believed they were more interested in securing progress on Ian Junior’s wish-list,” he argued.

“Why else would Mr Hanson have been so keen to write well in advance of (the) November 24 (deadline)?

“This confirms to me that the DUP took its eye off the ball and wasted valuable negotiating leverage on Junior’s pet projects. As leader of the party, Ian Paisley Snr has to carry responsibility for this squandering of the opportunities at St Andrews.”

Last month DUP party officers insisted, in response to another document released under Freedom of Information, that none of the six issues raised by Mr Paisley formed any part of the negotiations at St Andrews.