Committee on the Monday 3 July 2006 Members in attendance for all or part of proceedings: The Committee met at 2.06 pm. (The Chairman (Mr Wells) in the Chair.) The Chairman (Mr Wells): All the parties are now represented. As the first few items on the agenda are simple preliminaries we will start. I welcome Lord Morrow to our meeting. This is the first meeting of the Committee since his elevation, and I am sure that the entire Committee will wish to congratulate him on becoming Lord Morrow of Clogher Valley. We will address him by his proper title from now on. Congratulations. Can we agree the substitutes for today’s meeting? Mr Murphy: Apologies from Martin McGuinness. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Who is his substitute? Mr Murphy: There is no replacement. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mrs Dodds will be along; Mr Kennedy and Dr McDonnell, of course, are full members of the Committee. The Committee Clerk: John Dallat is here for Mark Durkan. Mr Ford: Apologies from Naomi Long. She should be here shortly. The Chairman (Mr Wells): She has gone downhill since we last saw her. [Laughter.] There are no further apologies. I draw Committee members’ attention to the original agenda, wherein item 3 was mentioned twice, and I apologise for that. You all have an amended agenda. We move on to the minutes of the meeting held on 28 June. Are members content that they are a true and accurate record of that meeting? Are there any comments or questions? That seems to have consensus. The next item on the agenda is important. On 29 June the two Chairmen of the Committee and the two Clerks met the Secretary of State and gave him a report of the Committee’s deliberations. We said that the Committee had met nine times and that its work had focused on the presentations by each of the five parties, followed by question-and-answer sessions. We said that a wide range of issues had been dealt with and that we were meeting today. The Secretary of State said that he considered the role of Chairman to be somewhat wider than the way we had been using it to date. He sees the role as facilitating and directing the work of the Committee, in addition to simply chairing the meetings, Members may wish to make their views known on that when we return to the issue later. Crucially, the Secretary of State said that he is minded to issue a direction that the Assembly will hold a plenary session this week on a subject to be determined by the Committee. We will return to that at item 5 on the agenda. We hoped to have received that direction in time for this meeting. It has not yet arrived, but the Clerks have informed me that they are in regular contact with the Secretary of State’s office. As soon as the direction arrives, it will be brought to the Committee for consideration. Mr Molloy, who was also at the meeting with the Secretary of State, and is here as an observer, may wish to add his comments on what was discussed. Mr Molloy: From the Chairs’ point of view, the meeting was certainly useful in that we were given lines of direction. The Secretary of State’s clear line, as the Chairman said, was that he would be giving directions with regard both to the subcommittees being set up and to a plenary this week to discuss the issues. He indicated that he would not issue a direction until this Committee had discussed the matter of a plenary. That seems to have changed slightly, but his thinking was on the lines that this Committee should discuss it today and then advise him. Maybe he is still waiting for that. The meeting was useful in the sense that it gave guidance to the Chairs on how to create and facilitate more discussion around the table. The Secretary of State indicated that if the subcommittees are set up, he wants the two Chairs, or Deputy Speakers, to chair them. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Although there appears to be a discrepancy, that is not the case: the Secretary of State can issue a determination today that the Assembly should meet, probably on Thursday or Friday. However, it is up to this Committee to decide what should be on the Order Paper for that meeting. That is the difference. He must give three days’ notice to Members of a meeting, but can give notice as late as the day of the plenary meeting as to the subject matter. We can make a decision on that today. It is clear that the Secretary of State is minded to call a meeting of the Assembly on the work of this Committee and devolution-related issues. Whatever we decide today will be referred to the Business Committee, which meets at 12.30 pm tomorrow. I will be chairing that meeting, because Madam Speaker is not available. After that, it is up to the Business Committee. Dr McCrea: The Business Committee seems to have little function other than to rubber-stamp things. The Secretary of State appointed the Deputy Speakers to chair this Committee, but with the greatest respect it is not up to them to direct the Committee — and I do not accept that we are to be directed. The Committee has been given a responsibility and a task that it must fulfil through making decisions by consensus. Nevertheless, the Business Committee should not be sitting there simply to be ordered around. It seems that this Committee can practically tell the Business Committee what to do and the Business Committee facilitates whatever it is ordered to do. One must ask what the Secretary of State sees as the Business Committee’s role, other than to be bullied by everyone and told exactly what to do. A Business Committee has a proper function in any democratic society. It should be allowed to function properly and appropriately without interference from others. Although the Business Committee will certainly accept whatever this Committee sends to it, it should also have the freedom to send business to the Secretary of State in its own right. I thought that the Business Committee was allowed to participate in that process and that the Secretary of State would issue a direction thereafter. The Business Committee seems to have been demoted to something less than what it is supposed to be. 2.15 pm Dr Farren: The SDLP has made it clear that it wants to see progress. At the last meeting of this Committee, we put forward a motion to try to achieve progress. Now that the Secretary of State has intervened — and I accept that he intended to be helpful — it would also be helpful to have some clear sense of how he views things. Has he put anything on paper that would clarify what he foresees as the direction of this Committee — which would probably be the easiest thing to understand — and, in particular, how the subcommittees would be established and how they would relate to this Committee and its business? It is to be hoped that they will. According to the communiqué issued by the two Prime Ministers on Thursday, they foresee this Committee being engaged in ongoing work over the next few weeks — in particular, leading to reconvened sessions of the Assembly and a more urgent pace behind all political movement in the autumn. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Dr Farren, you have raised a very important point. I am going to ask Mr Molloy to stay for this discussion, because it will deal with a meeting that we both attended. The issue of subcomittees came up at the meeting on Thursday, and the Secretary of State may issue a determination on that, but we do not expect that today; however, we expect a ruling this afternoon on the plenary session. He felt that the issue of subcommittees was best left to this Committee, but if we do not make a decision, he could well make a determination that, in addition to the plenary, subcommittees or working groups should deal with specific issues that have arisen during meetings of this Committee. Mr McFarland: I am worried that we are getting slightly ahead of ourselves. At the last meeting we said that we would decide today what we are going to do, and we have not had that discussion yet. Out of our discussion about where we are going may well come the logic that this Committee would want to involve the wider Assembly membership. We issued a plea to Sinn Féin at the last meeting — at which John O’Dowd was present — to reconsider their outright opposition to a plenary session towards the end of this week to discuss what is now a substantial body of work. If one reads the Hansard reports, one can see that we have done quite a lot of fairly good work here, and surely that should be enough to persuade Sinn Féin that there are issues that we should share with our colleagues in the wider Assembly. In addition, at the last meeting we identified broad issues that may require some form of expansion and digging down into because the exact issue was not necessarily clear. The actual problems could be further down and need to be “mined out”, and that might involve further meetings of this Committee or subcommittees over the summer. Discussions today might result in Sinn Féin accepting that there is a perfectly sensible logic to holding a plenary to discuss the good work that the Committee has done — indeed, we might identify that this Committee has more work to do and we may find a way of carrying that out over the next few months. I suggest that we discuss the matter, and with a bit of a goodwill all round we could reach agreement, because it would surely be much better if the Committee could agree what it wanted to do rather than having to rely on the Secretary of State to fly in to issue edicts on what he thinks we should be doing. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We are moving towards a discussion on the report from the meeting with the Secretary of State and future business, and it will be difficult to discuss each in isolation. Are members happy enough to have a general discussion on the way forward, including the Secretary of State’s determination, rather than simply putting the two items in different silos? What are members’ views on that? Mr Ford: It appears to make sense; they are clearly interrelated. The Chairman (Mr Wells): As the two have been running together, I think that we should keep Mr Molloy where he is. We may return to a discussion on the meeting, and, when that has finished, we can go back to the main agenda. Are there any other views on that? Mr Molloy: I will just add to what you said about the Secretary of State’s thinking, and what he said he was minded to do. First, he would direct that subcommittees be set up, and, secondly, that there would be a plenary. The Preparation for Government Committee would then deliver reports that could be debated in September plenaries, which would be part and parcel of that. The Secretary of State also said that he was interested in an earlier plenary, because September is a long way off, and work would need to be done in the summer in order to deliver those reports. If all parties request it, there can be a plenary this week. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Any decision has to be by consensus, but it is clear that even if we do not reach consensus the Secretary of State may take the decision anyway. It is important to realise that we are still bound by those rules. Mr McNarry, I will give you wide latitude today, because you were cut off last time. Mr McNarry: I accept your apology, Mr Chairman. [Laughter.] Dr McDonnell: Could we qualify that, Mr Chairman? Not too wide, because he will take advantage. Mr McNarry: It makes sense that agenda items 2 and 5 go together and that we treat them as such. I have spoken before of the manner in which the Secretary of State appears to treat us. This sounds like more of the same. He is treating the Assembly with disdain and is making little of the commitment that has already been shown by the Business Committee. He is toying with us on his directives for plenaries. If I heard Mr Molloy right, the idea is that we can talk and talk, but the discretion of the Secretary of State remains, and he will decide what he is going to do. He would probably be much better with a consensus or a recommendation from this Committee. It appears to me that he would much rather have all the boltholes blocked up, because this Committee would then send its recommendations to the Business Committee for the 12.30 pm meeting. In the meantime, however, a directive from the Secretary of State regarding a plenary may be winging its way to us as we sit. I find all of that hard to tackle in terms of doing business. Mr Chairman, I understand that there may not have been scope to do it at your most recent meeting with the Secretary of State: but next time, if you find yourself in that position, perhaps you would convey to him that although it is known as his Assembly, it is either totally his to do with as he wishes, or he must give some control to this Committee or the Business Committee. If he does not, Mr Chairman, quite honestly he is toying with us, and I find that very difficult. Whether or not I am judging on past performance, decisions to move forward have been taken on the basis of consensus. We know, after everyone has had their say, whether we are going to get consensus or not. Yet Hansard will show — because we all like talking, including myself — that after four hours we reached a conclusion that could have been reached in five minutes. If it is possible, without interfering in anybody’s freedom of speech, and while wishing to hear from everybody, the sooner we can move to consensus the better. I would appreciate that very much, because then we would be on a business footing, and we would know where we are going. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I will call Mr Ford next. Then, if anyone wishes to object to having a plenary on Thursday or Friday it would be useful to hear that, so that we know where we stand. Mr Ford: After many sessions, today we have finally got to the kernel of the issue, which is the role of the Committee and what more it can be expected to do. I mean no insult to the Chairman or the Co-Chairman, but I am unsure whether we will get a definite direction from the Secretary of State or whether he will wait to see if we can reach any consensus in the Committee first. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is highly probable that we will get a direction today that there shall be a plenary this week. The agenda for that will be entirely up to us. Mr Ford: As others have said, the Secretary of State can do whatever he wishes; that is the nature of the Committee and the Assembly in which we are operating. It is clear from our experience so far that consensus has never been easy, even on relatively uncontentious matters, and it has never been possible on contentious matters. Alan McFarland referred to the circumstances in which Sinn Féin Members might accept the concept of a plenary. The Secretary of State hinted that others might have to consider their attitude to the potential formation of subcommittees to carry out more detailed work over the summer than has been achieved so far. No one seems to be changing their minds and, if that proposal is presented as a one-off, perhaps parties will enthusiastically embrace that and we will get consensus. The nub of negotiations may be that everyone must accept that if one party gets something, another party will get something else. If the Committee established some consensus on that, weighing one thing against the other rather than taking one thing at a time, we might be able to get past the Secretary of State. However, that depends on whether people are prepared to strike a balance as opposed to considering issues one at a time. Mr Murphy: Sinn Féin has outlined its position several times in relation to how it sees the Committee doing its business and how that business relates to the wider Assembly. It is fairly straightforward, along the same fashion that other Committees have conducted their business in the previous Assembly: members carry out work, a report is produced, and that report is taken to the Assembly and debated there. We have no difficulty with that. We have no opposition to plenaries per se, but we are not in the business of playing the shadow-Assembly game of having debates in the Chamber to occupy ourselves or to show a disinterested or cynical public that we are somehow occupying ourselves. Sinn Féin genuinely wanted to come to the Committee to prepare for Government, to deal with the issues that everyone has identified and to get some serious work done so that we can meet the British Government’s deadline of 24 November. However, Sinn Féin believes that date could be met much sooner. Members have done some work in this Committee. We have put forward papers, we have examined each other on the issues that were contained in the papers, but we have not got down to serious engagement. The DUP has told us that it is not here to negotiate, and it is not working to the deadline of 24 November. It considers the work of the Committee as simply to identify the obstacles to the return of devolution. There are possibilities of the Committee getting down to serious work in the next couple of weeks. We look forward to that and we will be part of that, if that is what people wish, but we have not done any work that would justify rewarding ourselves with a plenary. There is no report; there is simply a series of questions and answers in relation to preliminary papers, and all of us have been publicly identifying those issues for a long time. I am unsure how that would be further developed in a plenary debate, other than by allowing the parties to repeat the same thing but with more Members. We all identified issues such as peace dividends or economic packages — or however people wish to describe it — and also policing and justice. People need to get down to some serious work on those issues and produce reports, which can then be the subject of debates. This is not some abnormal opposition to debating in the Chamber; we are simply clear that we neither want, nor will not get into, some form of shadow Assembly in which people justify their existence. We are trying to cobble together some sense of progress in the Committee, and we will work towards that. We want to work with the DUP, and the other parties, to achieve progress. 2.30 pm We will say it as we see it. Sinn Féin will not be part of tactical engagements to facilitate debates in the Chamber. That is all that we have seen to date: a tactical engagement in this Committee to justify a demand for Assembly debates. When we get beyond that, Sinn Féin will be quite happy to debate in the Chamber the substantive issues on which this Committee has worked in the Chamber. To date, however, that has not happened, and I hope that we get to that point fairly soon. Sinn Féin must make its own assessment on the work of this Committee. That has begun, and will continue over the summer so that we can see how the prospects for the autumn are shaping up. We are prepared to get down to serious work, but we have not seen any yet. Therefore, we will oppose any notion of a plenary meeting. Sinn Féin’s opposition may not matter; if the Secretary of State directs that there will be a plenary on Friday, he can open the Assembly for a debate. However, we will not consent to a plenary on Friday to debate this Committee’s work because we do not believe that sufficient work has been done. Dr McCrea: We have just listened to the usual from Sinn Féin. It has been unwilling to tackle the issues that have been highlighted here. Paramilitarism, criminality, decommissioning and policing are the major obstacles to the restoration of devolution in Northern Ireland. Sinn Féin has not been willing to face those issues, or to even practically acknowledge that they have any credence. Those issues have not gone away, you know. They will not go away until they are dealt with honestly, honourably and democratically. As far as the DUP is concerned, Sinn Féin will not participate in the Government of Northern Ireland until that happens. I was unable to attend the last Committee meeting. Apparently folks say that most weapons have been decommissioned. However, after the ammunition find in the Irish Republic, the Garda Síochána said that there is much more. The DUP did not say that; even the Independent Monitoring Commission (IMC) did not say it — the guards said it. There was another revelation at the weekend that a huge arms haul was found in a secret IRA bunker. A source in the Irish Republic said that enough explosives had been found to turn parts of Belfast into a car park. Bomb gear, timers and 500 rounds of ammunition were found. None was rusty and none dated from the periods mentioned in one of our last meetings; they were all up to date and could have been used to catastrophic effect. This is no joke; this is serious. Anyone who says that the decommissioning of all weapons, from whatever source, is not a serious issue that must be dealt with before there is stability and a democratic Government is blowing and whistling in the wind. That issue must be faced and tackled. With the greatest respect, only Sinn Féin/IRA can deal with that issue over the summer. No one else can do it. Sinn Féin needs to stop this evasion. All that we have got from its pile of the answers is evasion. The public can read the answers that came from the lips of the Sinn Féin spokespersons who attend these Committee meetings. When it came to presentation and examination, the leadership ran away. Evasion will not solve this; Sinn Féin must deal with the obstacles. With the greatest respect, my colleagues and I were not sent here to negotiate with anybody. We are here to clearly identify the problems that we, and the public, face in establishing a Government. There cannot be a Government unless it is solidly and only built on a democratic foundation that can stand the test. Therefore, the security forces must be supported when they tackle any group, irrespective of who they are, that seeks to undermine the future of any democratic Government. Criminality and paramilitarism continue and the structure of democracy is being demolished. I attended a conference in the Great Hall with folks from south and north Armagh who had produced a book entitled ‘Legacy of Tears’, which is an account of 30 years of Protestant suffering at the hands of Irish republican terrorists in north and south Armagh from 1969 to 1999. I recommend that everyone read that booklet, because it reminds us of the reality of the terrorism that has plagued this country. We want a complete end to that terrorism, whether from republicanism or loyalism; we want there to be no possibility that the nightmare of terrorism and the savage butchery of our people should continue. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State has an end agenda to which he, along with his leading civil servants, and Dublin are working. However, neither I nor my Committee and Assembly colleagues are nodding dogs for the Secretary of State. We will not nod our heads to his agenda. We have a policy and principles that we have put before the people, and we will not allow those who are wedded to terorrism or who support it to continue to pollute the democratic process in Northern Ireland. It is a disgrace that the Secretary of State and others have impeded the pathway of the economic working group — which the Secretary of State has acknowledged is under the Business Committee. The economic working group should already have been set up. There is no reason for our having to wait. No instruction has come to this Committee, even though the Secretary of State has been reminded that the Assembly resolved that the Business Committee should take forward the establishment of an economic working group It is not the business of the Secretary of State: it is the business of the Assembly. The Secretary of State acknowledged that an economic working group was to be set up, yet it is still in abeyance. It is a disgrace that the Secretary of State has prevented the economic working group from having a meeting. Will he get off his backside and give instruction that a working group be set up under the Business Committee? That is the appropriate place for it. Those who have impeded the formation of an economic working group should realise that they do not have to wait for this Committee to act on the matter; the working group should already be under way. Those who do not take the working group seriously have impeded something that is of vital importance to the future stability and prosperity of our country. The DUP representatives are not here to negotiate. Furthermore, we have no instruction from our party that we are to set up subcommittees through the Preparation for Government Committee. This Committee was to do its own work, not the work that the Secretary of State would like it to do. We are not here as his obedient servants. Mr McFarland: It is fair to say that, by the end of Wednesday of last week, we had had a fairly good five days and that the Hansard reports of our meetings are fairly substantial documents. I understand that the team that William’s party sent here on Wednesday sought a plenary this week. The general belief of four of the five parties present was that it would be extremely healthy for the Assembly to have a plenary sitting before we break for the summer, which we do at the end of this week. If we do not have a plenary by the end of this week, there will be none until September. Given that four of the five parties on the Committee thought that they had done a fair amount of work, we made a plea to the Sinn Féin representatives to go back to their high command — they were clearly sailing under orders — to get authority to produce something useful from this Committee so that we might have a plenary. In return, the Democratic Unionist Party might understand the need to investigate some of the issues further. Whether that would be done by subcommittee or by some other means is for the Committee to discuss. However, I am worried that we are competing to see who is the biggest or the toughest, or to see who can beat their chest the loudest. If we fail to agree a plenary — with the best will in the world, Sinn Féin may be playing the blame game — it is difficult to see how the DUP will agree to any Committee work over the summer. The Secretary of State may direct whatever he wants, but if the DUP fails to appear here, the Committee’s usefulness ceases. The Committee has done much hard work and much good work — it was working well. I return to the question of good faith. We can all play sillies, but serious engagement must be acknowledged. I said it on Wednesday and I shall say it again: for all its noise, the DUP has been engaging seriously in the process in Committee. Its representatives have attended each day, and they have asked questions and been questioned, and they have treated the Committee seriously, as have the rest of the parties. It seems sensible to me that we continue to treat the Committee seriously, but if we want a whole row and are unable to agree a plenary to discuss the issues raised in Committee, we shall all go off for the summer with the public thinking that we are even more useless than they had previously thought. In Committee on day one, Martin McGuinness said, “If it comes from this Committee, we will be there to debate it.” It now turns out that we have all sat here in good faith for five Hansard reports’ worth, and Sinn Féin, having told us all that it would debate with us in the Chamber if we did some work, is now being silly about doing that. The Sinn Féin representatives either did not go back to their party, or they did go back and the party has decided to play hardball. That is quite dangerous, because four fifths of no Committee is no Committee, and I am afraid that we need to give the matter some serious thought. The rest of us believe that we should have a plenary to discuss the good work that the Committee has done, and I cannot understand Sinn Féin’s reasoning as to why it should want to prevent that happening. The Secretary of State can call a plenary, and I have no doubt that he will call a plenary, because he has told the Deputy Speakers that he intends to call one. I would rather that that plenary was on business that this Committee had referred than on something that individual Members have submitted to the Business Committee. That is not such a daft idea. It would look much better if this Committee could produce something for a plenary debate rather than have the Secretary of State decide what should be debated. Dr Farren: As someone who regards himself as a self-respecting Irishman, I am never terribly happy to dance to the dictates of a British Secretary of State. From what Conor and Willie McCrea have both said, we seem likely to find ourselves back in a situation in which we have no discretion on the matter and in which all that we can do is to respond to what a Secretary of State sets down. Like Alan, I thought that we were reaching a consensus towards the end of last week. Although I have to accept the credentials of the DUP delegates who attend, I am not terribly sure which voices from the DUP really are to be believed, because we hear different emphases, if not completely different messages, coming across the airwaves to those emphases that are delivered here. People agree that there is work for the Committee to do. We heard one of the DUP delegates say last Wednesday that they foresaw work for the Committee over the next few weeks. I do not in any way deny or want to suggest that the DUP should not bring to the Committee the concerns that it has expressed on arms finds or on other issues linked to paramilitarism that it seems to think are important. However, the Committee cannot resolve those issues, even if we do find ourselves able to negotiate. The DUP would do far better to make its views known to those agencies that at least have some responsibility for overseeing such matters, and to let the Committee get on with what it is able to address. 2.45 pm One way or another, our presentations have identified a range of issues. I point out, in particular to Sinn Féin, that for over two and a half years, Sinn Féin had a delegate — Dara O’ Hagan usually — who sat with representatives of all the other parties that are represented here. They talked about, and ultimately agreed to, a basic framework document on economic regeneration. Is Sinn Féin saying that all that work is not sufficient to be referred to through this Committee to the Assembly, at least for its consideration, so that the responses that would be obtained in the Chamber could be distilled into further work? That is one of the issues on which a significant amount of progress has been made. Indeed, I have referred several times to the presence at the beginning of May of the Northern Ireland Business Alliance, the very people with whom we worked for two and a half years. Its members presented themselves and their views to us, and asked for our support, without which the ideas in the economic regeneration package, or framework document, could not be progressed. There is not an awful lot more that needs to, or should, be done on that matter. Perhaps Sinn Féin sent someone who was speaking without authority, but I understood that everything that its delegates said at that series of round-table meetings — many of them intense, over a long period of time — was said with the authority of the party. Work has been done that looks to the restoration of Government, so it cannot be said to have been something on the margins or something that was simply indulged in for the want of doing something else. That work was serious and has a considerable degree of outside support. Therefore, that could now be referred as a work in progress for further consideration. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The next contributors will be Dr McDonnell, Mr Murphy and Mr McCrea, but I think that we have been here before. I get the impression that, when it comes to a vote, we will not reach consensus on this issue. I suspect that that could happen. Therefore, if Mr Murphy holds to that view, I propose that, after Mr McCrea speaks, unless anyone has anything new to bring to the table on this issue, we will take a decision on the matter of a plenary. Once we have done that, we can move on to what we should do next, based on that decision. I hope that members are happy with that. Dr McDonnell, you have been very patient. Dr McDonnell: Mr Chairman, I will be very brief, because you are quite right; we have been here before. There are a couple of things that burn me about the issues that we are discussing. First, at street level, people — not just my own friends and supporters, but supporters of the DUP, the UUP, the Alliance Party and Sinn Féin — have one thing in common; they want to see progress. There may be a variation in what each group means by “progress”, but they expect movement. They will be disappointed if we do not get moving. Secondly, I wish to emphasise that we all, to a greater or lesser extent, resent the puppet-on-a-string position in which we have been placed by the Secretary of State, who is pulling us this way and that, and switching us on and off. However, in spite of that, the beginning of a degree of respect and trust is emerging among parties. I have a simple question that I want to address to Mr McCrea with all honesty and sincerity, and it is on the issue of residual arms and ammunition that may be out there, which he feels very strongly about. At what point does this issue — and we have heard the reports that he mentioned — create a barrier? Does this create a barrier to our talking and doing some preparatory work? If I was to follow my own logic through, and I may be wrong in this, the barrier that he suggests is one that should emerge much further down the road. If I read him correctly, it is a barrier to the formation of an Executive or a Government, rather than a barrier to our current talks. At what point does this barrier come in? If it comes in now and prevents us from doing any serious talking and advancing serious engagement here, then to some extent we are wasting our time going round this circuit on a weekly, if not daily, basis. I respect the feelings of Mr McCrea and his party, and I respect his interpretation, although I may not always agree with him on these things. The important point is that I can accept that from his perspective it is an obstacle to government, but surely it should not be an obstacle to our clearing the way for government. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Dr McCrea, you are the next speaker but one. Do you want to address that? Dr McCrea: No, I will deal with it when it is my time. Mr Murphy: I am of the view that our position has been very clear and consistent in relation to what we consider to be progress in this Committee and where that progress will take us. I appreciate Alan McFarland getting agitated about all of this, and there may be a degree of pressure from within his party to have debates in the Chamber. However, we have been very clear. I was not at the last meeting, but I have checked and Alex Maskey made exactly the same comment at the end of that meeting as I have made this week; exactly the same comment that we have made throughout. Alan might measure progress in terms of hours spent in this room, but I measure progress in the fact that we asked the DUP whether it was serious about 24 November and going back into government. We have had no response. They are not here to negotiate; they are here merely to list the obstacles to devolution as they see them. I do not measure that as progress. I am at a loss as regards having a plenary debate on Friday. Alan remarked that it might make us look good. We are not in the business of trying to look good. There is either progress or no progress. We are not about wasting our time here. We are about serious engagement with the DUP and the other parties and trying to progress some of these issues, but all we have had so far is a listing of issues that are well out in the public domain anyway. I am happy to stay here to continue that engagement and try to develop it, but it has not yet developed into a serious engagement. As for importing the work of other Committees or groupings into this Committee and trying to describe it as progress from this Committee that merits a debate: Martin McGuinness suggested that we could have had the work done in relation to an economic package in two days, and other people laughed and scoffed at the idea. If that degree of work is there, let us bring it in. Let us get the people who are tasked with economic regeneration issues to work on that, and let us get it back as a Committee report and have this Committee look at it and refer it to the Assembly for a plenary sitting, rather than try to import the work that some other Committee has done and describe it as our own in order to claim that there is progress on this Committee. This Committee was set up to prepare for government. That is its title. People lifted the issues that they wanted to see addressed. A lot of those issues are common, particularly the financial package. That is common to all the parties here. Work can be done on that, on policing and justice and on other issues. Some people think progress is measured by the number of hours that we sit here; that is not the standard of progress that Sinn Féin applies. We apply our standard when there is actual work being done here that merits being brought to the Assembly for debate. We do not try to look good, nor do we try to convince the public that something is happening when it is not. We are not under that kind of pressure. I do not know why other parties feel that way — perhaps it is the 24 November deadline closing in, with the resultant loss of salaries, constituency support, etc. If there is progress to be made, we will debate the issues in the Chamber. However, if no progress is being made, we are not afraid to stand up and say so. We do not cobble together the work of other Committees, or fancy up as progress whatever engagement there has been in order to justify ourselves. We want to see progress in this Committee and are willing to stay here over the next weeks. However, it must be said that we have not yet seen the kind of engagement that we want, and that we outlined at the outset. Dr McCrea: My leader, after a meeting with the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, said that he was under no pressure. I can assure you that I am under no pressure from my colleagues. In their last meeting, my colleagues kept in constant contact during that entire day. Therefore, we were absolutely as one. Let me remind you of what Mr Hay said: “If, for whatever reason, people are being obstructive, my party would have to decide whether there is any point in sitting on this Committee if we cannot debate in the Chamber.” — [Official Report, Bound Volume 19, page CPG 201] He then said: “If people are saying that good, reasonable work and progress on the issues have been conducted in this Committee, it might be useful to have a reasonable, sensible debate in the Chamber. There is no point in the DUP’s staying on this Committee if there is no debate in the Chamber.” — [Official Report, Bound Volume 19, page CPG 201] I heartily agree with my colleague. There are no mixed signals; that is clearly the position of every one of us, and it is a sensible position, because there is no use in pretending that something wonderful is happening. When we sought clarity on Sinn Féin’s position concerning the IRA, their weapons and the rest of it, all we got was evasion. Did they do it for the IRA? Were the instructions from the IRA? Was the person a criminal or not? If they did it for their own personal gain, they could be considered a criminal. However, as long as robbing banks, extorting money, evading tax, money laundering and fuel laundering were carried out under the instruction of the IRA, those were not crimes. Those people are supposed to be partners in a democratic Government, and we are meant to see that they are ready for that. That is their up-to-date position, expounded only a week ago in this Committee. The persons who do those things, as long as they have the cover of the IRA, are not criminals. I want to see progress. In fact, I suggest that the unionist community wants it more than most, because it has been at the receiving end of the Provisional IRA murder campaign for 35 years. However, even in this Committee, there are those who are unwilling to face the issues. They will talk about anything and everything except the real issues. I have the greatest respect for others, but none for Sinn Féin/IRA. Do not expect me to turn into someone who has. I do not accept Sinn Féin as another democratic party on the same lines as the SDLP, the Ulster Unionist Party and the Alliance Party. I do not accept that it has moved away from its inextricable link with the Provisional IRA. Therefore — and we make this abundantly clear — we will not get into government and we are not tied to 24 November, even though the Secretary of State has tied himself to that date. We are tied to getting a democratic settlement in Northern Ireland, based on the solid foundation of democracy alone, with no knobs on. With the greatest respect, I remind Dr McDonnell that it was the guns issue that four times brought down the Executive. When are the SDLP going to face that? The truth of the matter is that we have been lied to; the IICD told us that all the guns were gone. Yet the Garda Siochána said just last week that there are a lot more out there. Who am I supposed to believe? If we have turned the corner, if the IRA is no more and if the war is over, then what does the IRA want with guns and bombs and timers? Those guns were found thanks to an informer. 3.00 pm We need to get guns out of politics and to ensure that the only basis for any party getting into government is its democratic principles, not the number of its guns or the size of its bombs. The tragedy of this situation is that our Government have not forced Sinn Féin into that position, rather they have kowtowed and crawled to Sinn Féin over the last number of years even when they were reminded after the ceasefire, in the famous words: “They haven’t gone away, you know.” That was the Provisional IRA. So it sits in the wings. What would terrorists linked to a political party have for the future of Northern Ireland other than their terrorism? I want to see progress and a devolved Government but on the solid basis of democracy and democracy alone. I believe that there are other parties around the table that want that too. Some are willing to take a gamble. The Ulster Unionists under Mr Trimble took a gamble — “we’ll jump; now it is up to you” — and the Provos and Sinn Féin laughed at them. I can assure you that we will not allow the people to be lifted up and thrown down again. Whatever is resolved for the future of Northern Ireland, we will ensure that it will be something that we can build upon with a peaceful society for everyone, irrespective of your political philosophy or where you hang your hat on a Sunday. The only basis on which you will challenge one another will be on the basis of the argument not on the power of the bomb or the bullet. That is the democratic society that I believe in with all my heart, as do many others. However, it is no good closing our eyes. I heard Sinn Féin say today that it is not afraid to stand up — well, neither am I. Should I be standing on my own, I shall not be afraid to say exactly what needs to be done. Sinn Féin must get rid of the philosophy that if an instruction comes from the Provos telling you that you can rob a bank or extort money or threaten people and not be considered a criminal, it is all right because you are doing it for the cause. There is no cause that does those things in a democratic society. That is why it is imperative that any Government here is based on a democratic foundation with the full backing of the forces of law and order so that those who threaten democracy will be put down and defeated, which will allow that democracy to grow. That is what I stand for. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We are going round in circles. We are all trying to get consensus, and it is fairly clear the direction in which this is going. Mr Kennedy has a proposal that may move things on. Mr Kennedy: I am not sure if it will move things on. However, having listened carefully to what has been said, I think is time to put proposals and see what emerges after that. I propose that this Committee recommend to the Business Committee that a take-note debate be held in the Assembly to consider the Hansard reports produced by the Preparation for Government Committee and that this Committee proceed to conduct ongoing business and establish all necessary subcommittees to bring forward the work of the Preparation for Government Committee. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Did everybody get that? Mr Kennedy: I am happy for that to be tweaked — not substantially changed, but perhaps tweaked. Mr McFarland: Could the wording at the beginning of Mr Kennedy’s second motion be changed? The motion mentions “the Committee”. It should be made clear that the motion refers to the Preparation for Government Committee; as it stands, it could mean the Business Committee. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That has been amended. Are all members clear on that proposal? I am not asking for views on the proposal; I am asking whether members are clear on it. Does the proposal contain anything new to anyone who feels desperately that they must raise another issue? Is there consensus on Mr Kennedy’s motion? Mr Murphy: I could certainly not consent to the first part of Mr Kennedy’s motion, although I could consent to the second part. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is quite clear that there is not consensus on that motion. Are there any other proposals? Mr Murphy hinted at a motion earlier — I do not know whether he intended it to be so — suggesting that this Committee sets out terms of reference to examine the economic issues identified by the parties in the Preparation for Government Committee. I was not quite certain whether that was a motion. Mr Murphy: No. I was referring to how this Committee will conduct its future business as part of that discussion. Sinn Féin envisages, and has maintained all along, that this Committee needs to examine some of the issues that are common to us all. Sinn Féin has no difficulty in facing the issues that people want addressed. The Chairman (Mr Wells): As it stands, there are no further proposals. Is there any other matter on which a member wishes to make a proposal? Any proposals must be substantially different from Mr Kennedy’s in order to be considered. Mr McFarland: It is clear that there is no agreement within the Committee on proposals to have a plenary. If the Secretary of State directs that there shall be a plenary, does the Committee have a view on whether the subject of that plenary should be decided by the Business Committee? We are not discussing whether a plenary should take place, but what should happen in the event of the Secretary of State directing that a plenary will take place. Would the Preparation for Government Committee wish the Assembly to have a take-note debate on its work so far? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do members have any views on that? Mr Murphy: Sinn Féin’s previous view stands: we would be quite happy to debate any work that the Committee had done that was worthy of a debate. However, in our view, the Committee has not yet done any such work. It is quite simple: this is a hypothetical situation, no matter how hard people try to dress it up and turn it around. Sinn Féin will be quite happy for a plenary debate to be held when this Committee gets down to serious work and produces reports. To date, however, this Committee has not done that. The DUP has given a clear signal that it has no intention of getting down to serious work. I noticed that Mr Kennedy’s was phrased so that the DUP was not asked whether it was interested in establishing subcommittees. We will, no doubt, return to that issue at some stage. When this Committee gets down to serious work and produces reports, those reports can be debated. Sinn Féin is not interested in attending plenary debates for the sake of repeating in the Chamber the same things that have been said here and trying to justify its own existence. However, Sinn Féin would be content to take part in plenary debates that have some purpose and substance. Mr McFarland: If the Secretary of State wishes there to be a debate, and makes such a direction, either he will have to direct that the Assembly hold a take-note debate on the work of this Committee thus far or the Business Committee will have to choose one of the other motions already before it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr McFarland, is it your view that, if the direction is received, the Business Committee should recommend a motion? Mr McFarland: I sense that the Business Committee will not fare any better than this Committee, because it also relies on consensus for motions. The Chairman (Mr Wells): No. The Business Committee goes round the table, but it does not have to reach a consensus. Unanimity is not required, and the Committee can make recommendations. Both Deputy Speakers are in attendance at Business Committee meetings, and I am absolutely certain that, at every meeting, one party reiterates its views on plenary sittings. The other four parties state that they wish to make recommendations to the Secretary of State. Mr McFarland: However, it is the Secretary of State’s decision whether or not to accept those recommendations. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes, it is his decision. The Business Committee does not have a complete blocking mechanism; it can make recommendations to the Secretary of State. If this Committee cannot reach a consensus, it cannot make recommendations. Mr McCarthy: Can the Secretary of State refuse to accept recommendations? The Chairman: (Mr Wells): He has refused to do that. However, the Business Committee has the opportunity to make recommendations to him. Mr McNarry: The Secretary of State may take the view, contrary to the view of Sinn Féin, that serious work has been done in this Committee. He may, therefore, call for a plenary sitting on Friday to debate that work. I take it that Sinn Féin would not take part in that debate. Is the Secretary of State waiting for our decision, not on whether we agree on a motion for debate but on whether we agree, in principle, to having a debate at all? If that is the case, can we have a five-minute break to ascertain whether the Secretary of State’s direction is on its way and whether he needs to be told what we have done before anything is expedited? The Chairman (Mr Wells): We anticipate that the Secretary of State will issue a direction this afternoon for a plenary sitting on Friday; no motion will be attached to the direction. We had anticipated that the direction would have been brought into the Committee as we met. That has not yet happened, but it is pretty clear that it will happen. If we do not make a decision, the Business Committee will have to do that tomorrow. It can make a recommendation, by majority opinion, to the Secretary of State. This issue was discussed at our meeting with the Secretary of State last Thursday, because we knew that it was unlikely that we would reach a consensus. He is aware of that likely lack of consensus, which is why he is using this mechanism to ensure a plenary sitting before the recess. That is my understanding of the situation, but I shall ask Mr Molloy for clarification. Mr Molloy: That is exactly the position. The Secretary of State was minded to make a direction on the subcommittees and the plenary sitting before the end of this session of the Assembly. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We are in the position of nothing having been agreed. If a plenary sitting is imposed on us, there will clearly be no consensus on what the business should be. Please speak up if I am wrong, but that is my view. We have no proposals for business for a plenary sitting. Does anyone want to make a proposal, or will we simply move on and accept whatever happens? The Ulster Unionist Party delegation put a question to Sinn Féin about attendance at a plenary sitting. Does Sinn Féin wish to answer that question? Mr Murphy: I do not know whether the question was addressed directly to us. If a plenary sitting is called for Friday, Sinn Féin will not attend. Our position has been consistent; if a plenary is called to debate an issue that has resulted from a substantive piece of work, we will participate. However, if people are calling for debates simply for the sake of having debates or to reward themselves for having sat through nine of these Committee meetings, Sinn Féin will not be there. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Kennedy, do you have another proposal? Mr Kennedy: I do not have another proposal; my previous proposal did not get very far. It appears that the Secretary of State is to issue a direction on a plenary and the establishment of a subcommittee. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes, but we do not expect to receive the direction on the second issue today. Mr Kennedy: With the lack of consensus in the Committee, we appear to have reached a considerable deadlock. Sinn Féin has stated that it will not attend the plenary, and it is difficult to imagine how we could allow the Secretary of State to establish a subcommittee when we are not prepared to do so ourselves. The Chairman (Mr Wells): At the meeting, the Secretary of State said that he could not force anyone to attend anything. Therefore, he cannot force any party to attend the plenary or to nominate representatives to the proposed subcommittee. Mr Kennedy: Therefore, the likelihood is that if the Committee is not already in a deadlock situation, it is fast approaching one. 3.15 pm Mr Chairman (Mr Wells): Of course, that is subject to the consideration of other business on the agenda, but it is a view that could be held. Are there any other contributions on this issue? It is looking inevitable that we will not have anything to refer to the Business Committee. Is everyone agreed that that is the case? Members indicated assent. Having agreed that, our discussion of the meeting with the Secretary of State is complete. We will move on to future work for the Committee, particularly how we should deal with the Prime Minister’s statement. Mr McNarry: Will the Committee meet tomorrow? The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will decide that when we have ascertained whether we need a meeting. Members will have received a copy of the statement and work plan that were sent out with the Committee papers. I think that other MLAs received them as well. Members may wish to discuss the future work of the Committee, taking the statement and work plan into account. Also, members will remember that, at the last meeting, it was agreed that every MLA would be given an opportunity to read the Hansard report. I am extremely grateful to the Hansard staff who managed to get all the material out to MLAs by Saturday morning — certainly, mine arrived on Saturday morning. I am sure that members read every word of the Hansard reports over the weekend — or, at least for some of us, on Saturday — and have, therefore, familiarised themselves with the contents. The idea behind issuing the Hansard reports was to allow that to happen and to give those MLAs who are not members of this Committee the chance to make their views known at their party meetings. Do members wish to discuss the two sets of documents? Mr McFarland: I presume that the Wednesday Hansard is not yet closed to suggested amendments, as the others, presumably, are by now. In fact, the others have been printed and issued. Am I right? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. Mr McFarland: My party meeting is not until tomorrow morning, but I have spoken at length to party members. The Hansard reports are there for the record. Are we now discussing what the Committee does from here? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes, and there is another issue that we need to mention. On Thursday, all five parties met the Prime Minister and the Irish Prime Minister. Members may wish to report their views on those meetings. Those are the three items that we can throw into the pot and discuss to see whether we can distil a way forward for the Committee. Mr McFarland: A number of issues are not necessarily crystal clear. For example, have we identified the issue that needs to be solved or is there a broad issue that needs to be solved? There are clearly areas that we need to discuss at some point. The hard bit is working out what constitutes sensible discussion — with all five parties here, that seems to be a good idea — and identifying the areas that the DUP will not negotiate in this forum and from which it might shy away. Obviously, there may be issues that it will not wish to discuss. Therefore, it might be useful to identify whether all the parties are willing to mine down into the areas that we have identified. This would confirm whether those are the problem areas or whether particular parts of those areas are the problem. We have all had a general canter through the issues with the parties and have asked questions. However, there are things that are not yet clear. There is still work to be done, but, not wishing to repeat what I have said previously, other members in our parties are better qualified in some of those areas. It was agreed early on that, if particular topics were discussed on which present members of the delegations were not expert, we might include people who were experts in party delegations. It would be useful if we could identify the areas for further discussion. By and large, and whether or not we agree with them, those areas have been agreed as being problematic for one party or another. Where there are areas of common agreement, those matters could be set aside. The ministerial code is one such issue; as far as I can gather, all parties are agreed on that. I suspect that the Government will have produced a ministerial code. Would it be worthwhile for the Committee to ask for that so that it could be agreed and parked? There is work to do over the summer. However, we must look very carefully to the delegations to ensure continuity. There is a danger that issues discussed during the last three weeks may be revisited if new teams come to the Committee because current members are on holiday. Even though they may have full authority from their parties, new members may feel the need to beat their chests to show that they are as good as their predecessors. A lack of continuity could cause problems. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Clerks have read the Hansard reports and have produced a list of the headings of the subjects raised. It is quite extensive, running to 25 headings, but there are no great surprises. They are listed alphabetically and in no order of priority; some examples are the Belfast Agreement, a bill of rights, and the Civic Forum. The list will be given to Members. That list does not change the table of issues: the Clerks have simply gone through the Hansard reports and come up with main headings raised by each party. Members may wish to have a brief look at the list. Dr Farren: Although I am glad that we are getting down to this task, is there a clear willingness to engage in whatever debate may transpire around any or all of those issues? From the hiatus created by our failure to agree on the previous issue, the question of whether all parties are willing to contribute to further discussion in this Committee in whatever format we decide — whether it is in plenary or through subcommittees — has yet to be clarified. Before we get into the issues that need to be discussed, we must know whether we are we all prepared to put our weight behind the wheel and participate further. I thought we were coming close to a full stop about 10 minutes ago. I do not want that to happen, but we must know whether we are discussing matters that will be taken forward. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Clerks have kindly identified four core issues that members agreed were important and needed to be clarified: economic regeneration; devolution of policing and justice; the institutions, both North/South and east-west; and the Programme for Government. That does not pre-empt anyone’s view on whether we go forward at all to discuss those, and in what mode. However, it should be put on record that the Clerks have identified those issues. We now move on to the substantive issues. Do members wish to go forward to deal with those, and if so, in what mode? Remember that there must be consensus. Mr McFarland: I am slightly worried. On Wednesday, I spoke at length about the comprehensive agreement, including issues relating to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Those do not appear to feature. The Chairman (Mr Wells): North/South and east-west issues and the comprehensive agreement come under the heading of ‘Institutions’. Mr McFarland: The comprehensive agreement was the follow-on from the Belfast Agreement, which is listed, and encompasses all sorts of issues that are listed elsewhere. It was a major issue on Wednesday: you will find it mentioned throughout most of Hansard. I am worried that putting the comprehensive agreement under the heading of ‘Institutions’ means that we all have to guess where it is. The same applies to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister issue. That is on a par with the bill of rights and the Civic Forum. Those are all in the comprehensive agreement but have been listed separately. May I have those included, please? As you will see from Hansard, they are key issues. The Chairman (Mr Wells): OK. Is everyone agreed? If a party believes something to be important, we must accept that as its perception. Dr Farren: My question stands, Chairman. Before we add to or subtract from this list, we need to discuss it. There is no point to having a list if we are not going to discuss it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We should at least let individuals know that if we were to agree a model for discussions, that is the sort of thing that we would discuss. However, again that requires consensus. The four common issues are economic regeneration, devolution of policing and justice, institutions, including North/South and east-west issues, and A Programme for Government/priorities for Government as per the Prime Ministers’ work plan. All parties identified those as important issues that must be resolved. Dr McCrea: Why are we coming back to that? Why have we not allowed the establishment of an economic regeneration committee, which was supposed to operate under the Business Committee? That work could be done in the summer. It seems that no one is willing to take it on and that either the Secretary of State is sitting on his backside or hands in relation to that, or he is not allowing the Business Committee to take it forward. This Committee forwarded the matter to the Business Committee. Why has it stopped there? What is the motive behind that? We say that we are concerned about economic issues and the business fraternity and that Assembly Members could start work on that over the summer. Why has that not happened? Mr McFarland: I do not understand why, because this Committee backed it, but there was no cross-community support, as both Sinn Féin and the SDLP objected to it at the Business Committee. So, even if four members of that Committee had agreed and one had not, it could not have gone forward to the Secretary of State. Dr McCrea: The question of establishing an economic regeneration committee arose from a debate in the Assembly and went from there to the Business Committee. Then the Secretary of State started messing around and brought it to this Committee. We sent it to the Business Committee, and in a letter the Secretary of State said that he would instruct the Speaker to take it forward. Why has that not happened? It should be moving along. Those who pretend to be concerned about economic issues have put a block on the establishment of that committee because they want the issue to sit here — even though it was sent from here to the Business Committee to take it forward. People are messing around. They are not going to play games — certainly not with the DUP. It was supposed to have happened. The business community was supposed to sit with Assembly Members and take that forward. That could have started in May, but there has been fooling around. What is this Programme for Government that everybody has identified in the list of issues? 3.30 pm The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Programme for Government/priorities for Government was identified as an issue by all parties Dr McCrea: When did all parties list that as an issue? The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Prime Ministers issued a work plan. Dr McCrea: As far as we are concerned, they did not issue it to us. The first that we heard from the Prime Minister is in this letter. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That work plan was issued to all members. It was attached to the statement that was issued after the meeting on Thursday. Dr McCrea: When did I, or my party delegation, mention the Programme for Government? The Chairman (Mr Wells): That was raised by the Prime Minister. Dr McCrea: It was said that the parties mentioned the Programme for Government, which is why it was included in the list of issues. The Chairman (Mr Wells): You are correct. I should have said that the first three points were common to all parties. The fourth point was raised by the Prime Ministers. You are absolutely correct; that was my mistake. Lord Morrow: Does that heading need to be changed? Dr Farren: The DUP talked about a financial package. There are various ways of describing economic regeneration. One can use the term “financial package” if it encompasses what economic regeneration is about. As far as the SDLP is concerned, that would be part of a Programme for Government. The administration of available resources must be part of a Programme for Government; that cannot be done separately. We can have ideas about economic regeneration, which would form part of a Programme for Government. Mr McNarry: If we do nothing else today, can we clear up the situation of a financial package and economic regeneration? I share Mr McCrea’s exasperation about this, and he is right to ask where it stands. My colleague, Mr McFarland, is also right in that when the issue was discussed, the Committee, to all intents and purposes, reached a consensus. My recollection is that this Committee adjourned because there was a meeting of the Business Committee at 12.30 pm. We adjourned; the Business Committee met. It was then reported, much to the surprise of Seán Farren, that his colleagues on the Business Committee did not share the same opinion as the SDLP members in this Committee. I commented that SDLP members here are talking with a different tongue to SDLP members in the Business Committee. Will this item be on the Business Committee’s agenda when it meets tomorrow? Could we agree that we should let the Business Committee know that we would like that pushed forward? The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is worth mentioning that the Committee discussed this issue on the 20 June and consensus was not reached. A decision has been made on this issue, although several groups in this Committee did not like it. Would you like a second decision to be taken? Mr McNarry: I thought that consensus had not been reached on whether to have a debate because the Sinn Féin delegation decided that it was not prepared to allow such a debate. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I will read the minute. It states that: “1. The Committee considered a letter from the Speaker to the Committee enclosing correspondence she had received from the Secretary of State about the establishment of the working group on the economy. 2. Dr McCrea proposed that the Committee asks the Secretary of State by direction to set up the working group on the economy and invite the Business Committee to determine membership and arrangements for the chairing of the Committee. There was not consensus and the proposal fell.” Mr McNarry: We are jolly fortunate that the leak to Mark Devenport does not seem to have highlighted our inability to address this issue. The business community must think that we are a quite pathetic lot, in that the Assembly makes recommendations, which are then blocked because of party politics. I am only asking for a direction. If you are telling me that we cannot go back on it, then I accept your ruling. We have talked about financial packages and economic regeneration again this afternoon, and there seems to be a consensus that there is a need to address those matters. We are falling down on the vehicle with which to address them. Is it not possible that, given that those issues are so important, that consensus could go back from us to the Business Committee? If we cannot do it, I accept your ruling. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The next two members to speak are Mr Murphy and Mr McCrea, and perhaps we will tease out a consensus on this issue. Mr Murphy: Just to correct the recollection, the letter from the Speaker reflected on two options offered by the Secretary of State to take the proposal forward. One was a separate committee and the other was a subcommittee of this Committee. We argued at the time — and the logic still stands — that if all of the parties have listed this as an important issue for preparation for government, which they have done, the logical thing would be that a subcommittee would report back to this Committee and then to the Assembly. At the Business Committee, the SDLP also agreed that that was the better of the two options, but we did not get agreement from the other parties as to which option to go for. Dr McCrea: It is correct that four groupings agreed to send the matter to the Business Committee and that recommendations would be formed there. That included the Ulster Unionists, Alliance, the SDLP and the DUP. I am led to believe that when the proposal went to the Business Committee, those four went down to three when the SDLP delegation changed its mind. If we have to look at the record we will find out exactly who did or did not agree. The truth of the matter is that this should have gone ahead in May. The Secretary of State has to carry some of the responsibility. He muddied the waters, because the matter went straight from the Assembly to the Business Committee, and at least it was being taken forward at that time. Then it was put back for further discussion to allow this Committee to be established. It was established, and then we saw different shenanigans taking place thereafter. The matter ought to be sent back to the Business Committee, which should be asked to put it into action. That can be done, and it would be good to get the Secretary of State’s letter to Mrs Bell out as well, just to see exactly what he did say on the matter, because he was instructing the Speaker to set that up. That is what it said in his letter. Mr Murphy: Is Dr McCrea making a proposal? Dr McCrea: Yes, I am. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is there a consensus on Dr McCrea’s proposal? Mr Murphy: This proposal has already gone to the Business Committee. It has been discussed here, and discussed there. There was no agreement on how it was to be carried forward. There were two options. We have it listed here as an option or a topic of interest. We argued all along that it should be treated as a topic of interest for this Committee. There was no consensus in the Business Committee as to which of the two options was the best. There was a difference of opinion. I cannot see that sending it back to the Business Committee will produce a different result. The Chairman (Mr Wells): So there is no consensus. Mr Murphy: No. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Clerks have kindly advised me that there are several options before us. We could set up our own subcommittee, or, as a Committee, we could deal with this issue as a substantive agenda item. In other words, economic regeneration would become one of the issues that we would deal with over the summer. Allied to that, we could invite the economic experts in our parties. I am only putting those out as the options that are available. As Chairman, I cannot make any proposals, but whatever we decide, it must be by consensus. If we do not, it will not be carried forward. It is as simple as that. Dr McCrea: That is exactly what was suggested. It is nothing new. That is exactly what the other committee was to do; it was to bring in experts from the parties and from the business community. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The fundamental difference, Dr McCrea, is that that would be driven by this Committee rather than a separate economic development committee elected from the Assembly. Dr McCrea: There has not been consensus; therefore that does not stand. As the Chairman said, the decision has been made. After debating the issue, it was decided by four parties to one that the Business Committee was the proper and appropriate place to take forward the establishment of a working group. Mr Murphy: There cannot be consensus to send something back if all the parties do not agree to it. Dr McCrea: There was not consensus — I said that it was decided by four parties to one. Mr Murphy: One cannot take action based on a ratio of four parties to one. Mr Kennedy: I would like clarification. Will a subcommittee address the issue or will that be the main work of the Preparation for Government Committee? Dr McCrea: The Business Committee will address the matter. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The two options have been tabled to help to direct members’ thoughts, but, again, we need consensus. As it does not look as if we will get that, we will ask the Business Committee to set up an economic working group. Mr McFarland: It was referred back to the Business Committee because we could not get consensus, but the Business Committee could not reach consensus either. Technically, it is now a matter for the Secretary of State or for this Committee; all of us would like the issue to be addressed as it is on our agenda, notwithstanding all that has gone before. Is there any need for us to examine economic regeneration or financial packages as part of this exercise? We have all identified the topic and it is on our agenda separately from the debate that took place in the Assembly. The record of the Assembly debate is sitting on the Secretary of State’s desk, so it is up to him whether he establishes a committee, separate or otherwise, to take forward that issue. The issue is also on our agenda, because it has been identified in discussions around this table. One could argue that those are separate issues. The report is sitting on the Secretary of State’s desk but nothing is happening, as he seems to be reluctant to establish a committee; however, the issue needs to be discussed at some level as part of our deliberations because it is on the list and all the parties brought it up. Therefore we either leave it with the Secretary of State in the hope that he will do something about it at some stage, or we address it as part of our discussions in this Committee or in a subcommittee. Dr Farren: I remind members who have been quick to try to identify where the SDLP stood on this issue some weeks ago that I recognised then, as I recognise now, the impasse that we were in. I stated that the SDLP’s preference was for the work to be taken forward through the Preparation for Government Committee either in plenary or in subcommittee. However, recognising that we were not going to get consensus or a clear way forward through the Business Committee, I proposed a compromise whereby the Business Committee and the Preparation for Government Committee could take the issue forward together. We did not say one thing here and say something different in the Business Committee. The SDLP put forward a helpful compromise, but it failed. There was no point in the Business Committee’s moving ahead with something that was equally likely to fail. We are now in the same position as we were four weeks ago. I recognise that the same arguments about how we proceed will lead us into the same impasse; therefore I have contributed little to this part of the debate. The SDLP was trying to be helpful; it is not in the business of one hand not knowing what the other is doing. 3.45 pm Mr McNarry: If we are dealing with the three main issues that the Prime Minister laid down, plus this one, how will the Committee deal with other matters? Will it do everything in the same way? In other words, if the Committee feels that it could deal with this matter, it needs to be clear and consistent in what it does, given that it is being asked to deal with devolution, policing and justice, as well as the institutions and North/South and east-west matters. We are unlikely to have any of those issues debated by the Assembly, because there will not be consensus for that. We are also unlikely to reach consensus to break into subcommittees to discuss those three main issues. What is to stop this Committee from taking the financial package and economic regeneration issue and deciding that it will prepare the report and take expert witness evidence? The Chairman (Mr Wells): If, by consensus, we agreed to bring in our economic experts to help with that, there would be absolutely nothing to stop the Committee from doing that. We have four simple options: set up a subcommittee; take it as a substantive item for the Committee to deal with; do nothing at all; or, given that we may not have had the chance to consult our parties on the issue, we could defer it. I get the impression that there have not been too many group meetings today, so it may be an option to adjourn so that we can consult our parties. Mr McFarland: I would like to ask William McCrea about subcommittees. Part of the difficulty that we will have is that a substantial number of issues clearly need some sort of discussion. My sense is that we will not have a massive number of meetings over the summer with people coming back and forward and going here and there etc, but it would be good to have some meetings, if everyone is happy with that. Therefore, it may well be that, in order to get the ground covered on those different issues, there may be some merit in looking at the Committee’s taking on the large issues such as those that Mr McNarry mentioned. Perhaps subcommittees of experts from our parties could examine the areas in which they have an expertise. What are William’s latest thoughts on how we proceed? At one stage, there was a suggestion that, so far as the Democratic Unionist Party was concerned, there would not be any subcommittees because that party would not be comfortable with that. Is that still the case, or is there wisdom and merit in examining whether we need to bring colleagues into subcommittees to discuss some of the topics, rather than taking up time from this Committee’s dealing with larger issues? Dr McCrea: I have no authority whatsoever to make any determination or agreement about subcommittees. Our party will not meet until Friday, if there is a plenary. Our colleagues are in other places and no Assembly group meeting has been called. However, there is nothing to stop the Secretary of State from doing that. The Assembly referred the matter to the Business Committee, which was unable to reach consensus. The Secretary of State then lifted the economic package and sent it up to this Committee, there was no consensus, and it was sent back down to the Business Committee. There is absolutely nothing to stop us from sending the matter back to the Secretary of State and requesting that he set up an economic committee. Make no mistake: he has not turned down that possibility. He was waiting for the Business Committee to refer the matter to him, but it could not agree to do so. There is nothing to prevent the Secretary of State from setting up an economic working group. Since he was flexing his muscles and since he told us in his determination that he was going to set up committees, let us find out exactly what he does. This is his test. Mr McFarland: The matter is with the Secretary of State for his decision. My worry is that if he has not made a decision — and, clearly, he has not — can we find out whether he intends to do so? If the Secretary of State is determined not to make a decision, the Committee cannot ignore that. It is, after all, a major issue in which the business community has been involved. I am not sure that we can ignore the issue on the off chance that the Secretary of State might, at some time, decide to act. It would be useful to know whether he intends to establish such a working group. However, the issue has been round everyone and is now back on his desk. Dr McCrea: With the greatest respect, I thought that the import of the report that the Deputy Speakers gave us was that either we would have subcommittees or that the Secretary of State would set them up. Mr McFarland: He was talking about subcommittees of this Committee. Dr McCrea: Yes, but he has the authority to set up any subcommittees — Mr McFarland: Yes, but he is refusing to do that. Dr McCrea: He has not acted because he is waiting to see whether we would refer the matter, but we have not been able to reach consensus and neither has the Business Committee. However, it is within the power of the Secretary of State to set up a working group. If he believes that this matter is important, there is nothing to prevent him from ensuring that an economic working group be set up to start its work. It has already been agreed that Assembly Members would be off from 7 July to 4 September — I think that that is in the letter. Some Members are already away. Let us not say that they should forgo their rights — just because the Secretary of State and everybody else forget about them — to debate the matter in the Chamber. There is nothing to prevent the Secretary of State from ensuring that an economic working group be set up to work with the business community and its experts. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I will refer to Thursday’s meeting for clarification. If the Secretary of State issues a directive that subcommittees be established, it is inevitable that one of them will be on economic matters; it is unimaginable that that would not happen. Perhaps that is the reason — Dr McCrea: The Secretary of State knows that there is an impasse in this Committee. Therefore if he is really interested, he should remove the matter from the contentiousness that exists between the political parties and set up a committee to deal directly with economic issues. Mr McNarry: Is it clear, Chairman, that he will not issue such a directive for another week or 10 days? Dr McCrea: If he did issue a directive in 10 days’ time, we would be better off than we are now. We started in the month of May and now we are in the month of July, yet the Secretary of State has done nothing. Dr Farren: Neither have we. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I came away with — Dr McCrea: With the greatest respect, I would like to respond to that. We cannot have it both ways. Certain of your statements say that we have done some things and that we are moving on. You praise one day, only to cut the feet from under us the next. Make up your mind. Scripture says that: “A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways”. Therefore if you have two double minds on it — Dr Farren: I question my stability every time I leave this place. Dr McCrea: Do you want to stop the meeting? We can do that if the member wants. Mr McNarry: Seán Farren should go back to Parnell. Mr Dallat: Kitty O’Shea. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Where do we go from here? Do we want subcommittees, do we want this Committee to take the subject on board, do we do nothing at all, or do we adjourn to consult our parties? Mr McFarland: William told us that his party has not been able to consider the matter yet. There are logical arguments for taking issues forward either as this Committee — and there is merit in that suggestion — or as a subcommittee in order to involve others. It would be useful for us to discuss that proposal with our parties because it is clear that this Committee cannot currently make decisions. The Chairman (Mr Wells): To clarify, what do you intend to consult your parties about, and when? Mr McFarland: The Committee might meet tomorrow, and our Assembly group’s meeting normally takes place on Tuesday mornings. Our party group is agreed that we need to take the matter forward. There is no doubt that the Committee needs to examine and expand on some issues. Therefore, by and large, we would be happy enough to take the matter forward, because certain issues require further discussion. We have no objection in principle to the establishment of a working group. As William has just told us, the Democratic Unionist Party clearly needs to discuss the issues. I do not know the other parties’ positions. Mr Murphy: We are happy to allow other people to go off and consult. We want to get down to work, and we have already advocated the best way of getting down to that work. Although William says that there is nothing to prevent the Secretary of State from following a course of action, our party’s opinion and that of the SDLP should prevent him. We were offered two options, and we opted for one of those. The Democratic Unionist Party and the Ulster Unionist Party opted for the other option, and the Alliance Party — without my trying to state its position — would perhaps have been happy with either. There is a job of work to be done, and we have always advocated the way in which we see that work going. We are happy to decide now, but if other parties want to consult on the structure of the working group, we are happy to return to make a decision in a future meeting. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do we have consensus that parties should be given time to consult? Is there any objection to that? Mr Dallat: How much time shall we allow for consultation? The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is a matter — Dr McCrea: With the greatest respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is not a matter of whether you give the parties time to consult. As far as we are concerned, we will take the time to consult with our party, and we are not taking a gift from anybody. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Parties can of course consult. Mr Dallat asked on what date the Committee would resume after parties had been consulted. Mr Kennedy: It would appear, Mr Chairman, that the earliest day on which we could meet would be next Monday. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is looking like that, because one party group does not meet until Friday, one meets tomorrow, and I do not know when the SDLP is meeting. Mr Kennedy: There is potentially a plenary on Friday. Dr Farren: If there is a plenary on Friday, I do not know what the urgency is to meet this week. I am happy enough for the Committee to meet if it is necessary, but, given what Mr McCrea has said, the DUP will not be in a position to advise us of its opinion until Friday. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is Monday at 2.00 pm an option? Dr Farren: Yes. Mr Murphy: It might prove a difficulty for me, but I am sure that we will be represented. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are there any other problems with meeting on Monday at 2.00 pm? Mr McFarland: I wonder where we stand. It is my understanding that the Assembly breaks on Friday. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes, but the Secretary of State, when he met the parties last week, said that this Committee could continue to meet. Mr McFarland: No, we cannot. The problem is that — Dr McCrea: With the greatest respect, I thank the Secretary of State very much for his kindness. Who does he think that he is? The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am only reporting what the Secretary of State said. Mr McFarland: As I understand it, the Assembly breaks on Friday for the summer. Dr McCrea: You might be nodding dogs to the Secretary of State, but some of us certainly will not be. Mr McFarland: The difficulty is that this is the Secretary of State’s Assembly. Dr McCrea: Absolutely. Therefore it breaks on 7 July and, as the letter says, that break lasts until 4 September. That is the Secretary of State’s Assembly. Mr McFarland: Yes. The Secretary of State’s Assembly breaks on Friday and reconvenes on 4 September. We clearly have work to do in this Committee, and, according to what the Prime Minister has issued, we will meet over the summer. There is a traditional holiday for a fortnight over the Twelfth. If we are wishing to meet when one half of our community traditionally disappears down South or overseas during that time, are Sinn Féin and the SDLP likely to be present, or will they be in Cork on holiday? Are we likely to see the DUP and ourselves, when some of us are apt to be involved in other things? What are the chances of people attending next week with concentrated minds? We need next week to confirm where the Committee is going with issues. We may then need to take a short break, as people will be off on holidays or whatever. However, if they are not, we can carry on. Dr Farren: We must first establish whether we can move forward. 4.00 pm Mr McFarland: We should meet on Monday at 2.00 pm to confirm whether this is a starter. Would that be sensible? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Some of us have problems with Wednesday, but Monday 10 July should be OK. Mr McNarry: Sinn Féin members are all going to the “orange-fest”. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We seem to have reached agreement to meet on Monday 10 July at 2.00 pm. We have one other very important issue to deal with. All members have received copies of the Hansard reports for the period of 20-28 June. We must decide whether to place those reports on the Assembly website. That will make it a public document for all of the community to read. Mr Ford: Before or after Mark Devenport? The Chairman (Mr Wells): That would be the corrected version. Members will have an opportunity to correct the reports before they appear on the website. Mr McFarland: As I understand it, we are issuing the reports to Assembly Members. The Chairman (Mr Wells): They have already been issued. Members received them on Saturday. Mr McFarland: I hope that last Thursday’s report was not issued, because it is being corrected. However, if the Assembly Members have received the reports, the press will almost certainly have them too. The Chairman (Mr Wells): They are supposed to be confidential, but — Mr McFarland: The press almost certainly have them, and, if that is the case, there is not much point in trying to pretend that they do not exist. We are famous for not being able to hold our confidences. Dr Farren: Are we issuing the unedited or the corrected version to Assembly Members? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Only the corrected version. Dr Farren: That is OK. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Ford, are you happy? Mr Ford: I wish to check the time scale. The version for correction that we received on Saturday morning has now expired its 24 hours. Mr McFarland: That is working days. The corrections need to be in today. The Committee Clerk: The corrections should come back as soon as possible. There is flexibility. The corrections should be in by lunchtime tomorrow. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Once the Assembly Members have received all of the corrected versions, we are proposing that they go straight on to the website. Have we reached consensus on that? Members indicated assent. Dr McCrea: We said from the word go that they should be placed on the website. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Hansard staff know where they stand on that issue. We meet again at 2.00 pm on Monday 10 July. Mr Molloy will be in the Chair. Adjourned at 4.05 pm. |