Committee on the Monday 17 July 2006 Members in attendance for all or part of proceedings: The Committee met at 12.04 pm. (The Chairman (Mr Wells) in the Chair.) The Chairman (Mr Wells): Let us get the ball rolling. Are any deputies here this afternoon? Mr O’Dowd: Yes, Deputy Speaker. I am standing in for Martin McGuinness. Dr Farren: Alasdair McDonnell will be here later. Mr McCarthy: I am standing in for Naomi Long. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Ulster Unionist Party has a full complement; its main team is here. Dr McCrea: Diane Dodds will be here for the DUP. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The minutes of the meeting of 10 July 2006 have been circulated. Do members have any comments to make about those? Dr McCrea: The minutes state that: “the Committee should send a report to the Secretary of State.” Mervyn Storey said that he did not agree with that and that he agreed with Mr Kennedy’s proposals. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Initially, Mr Storey did not raise a concern but, on reflection, he subsequently objected. Ms Gildernew: However, by then the proposal had been agreed. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. The difficulty was that when that meeting’s Chairman, Mr Molloy, put that proposal, Mr Storey did not comment. However, he later indicated that he did not agree with the interpretation of consensus. By that stage we had passed that point, and it was difficult to unwind. However, Mr Storey clearly stated that he felt that that was not a fair record. Dr McCrea: I want that drawn to the Committee’s attention. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are members happy that Mr McCrea’s comments be noted? As there are no further additions or corrections to the minutes, we shall move on. As you remember, at the meeting of 10 July 2006, two proposals were agreed by consensus, although Mr McCrea has pointed out that the DUP group subsequently indicated that it had not assented to one of those. However, Mr Molloy, Mrs Dunwoody, Martin Wilson and I put the two agreed proposals to the Secretary of State on 11 July 2006. We pointed out the anomaly in the Secretary of State’s direction of 3 July 2006. He appeared to instruct this Committee to set up subgroups but then stated that the decision to do so should be taken by consensus. We sought clarification on that and on the establishment of the three subgroups. Mr Molloy was at that meeting, so I will ask him to come to the table because questions might be asked of the entire group that attended that meeting. The Clerks made strenuous efforts to ensure that, over the holiday period, everyone received the Secretary of State’s subsequent letter and determination. I assume that it is dated 11 July 2006 and that it is in your packs for today’s meeting. A helpful letter, which is also dated 11 July, is attached. I will read the salient points. The Secretary of State wrote to me; did he write to you, Mr Molloy? Mr Molloy: Yes he did, Mr Chairman. The Chairman (Mr Wells): As directed by this Committee, we asked the Secretary of State whether he was making a direction to set up subgroups under paragraph 4(1) of schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 2006. He stated: “I confirm that I am making a direction and a referral to set up the three specified subgroups.” In other words, that is not a decision that has to be taken by consensus of this Committee: it is something that he is directing us to do. We asked if the Secretary of State intends that the subgroups operate by consensus or by majority vote. He is saying that he is content with simple majority voting. We must remember that the subgroups will report to the Preparation for Government (PFG) Committee, and that decisions taken by the PFG Committee remain on a consensus only basis. It is important to emphasise that that is still a safeguard — as some people might see it — if they disagree with something that has been agreed by majority in the subgroups. We also asked the Secretary of State what would happen if one or more parties did not attend the subgroups. He has directed that the subgroups be made up of two individuals from each party: one will be the party’s representative on the PFG Committee and the other will be a party nominee. For example, if the subject were economic development, the nominee would be the party’s spokesman or expert on that issue. He added that if, for any reason, parties fail to nominate or attend a subgroup, its work would continue: full attendance is not a requirement. He is also content that substitutes could be appointed if the main spokesmen could not attend the subgroups. The question arose of whether the Secretary of State envisaged that the subgroup on the devolution of policing could discuss criminality and decommissioning. He said that he is content for that to happen — if the subgroup agrees. Those were the questions we were asked to put to the Secretary of State, and he has issued what I perceive to be a reasonably clear direction, and that has been issued to all members. Members may wish to discuss the contents of those important documents. Dr McCrea: The Secretary of State has made a direction, and, under the Act he can do that. The next step would be to establish the subgroups and receive nominations. I made it clear that Northern Ireland faces economic challenges and that this is the wrong place for work on that to begin. However, if the Committee accepts the Secretary of State’s direction then the DUP would be making nominations to that subgroup. However, I have no direction from my party to make nominations to the other two subgroups. Dr Farren: I did not hear the Member’s last point. Dr McCrea: I have no direction from my party to make any nominations to the two other subgroups — devolution of policing, and changes to the institutions. I am only giving members the facts. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are there any other comments on either the letter or the direction? We will be moving on later to the actual mechanics of establishing the subgroups. Dr Farren: I assume, given that decisions in the subgroups will be by simple majority voting, that parties which are not part of the majority will be able to submit their views on a particular issue as part of the report, so that views which did not form the basis for the majority support would also be transmitted to this Committee, and that no party would find its voice excluded from the report. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is the convention of the Assembly generally, and the Secretary of State mentioned the issue. Groups have the right to try to convince the PFG Committee that their arguments are correct and to try and get the report changed. The proceedings would be minuted, reported by Hansard and put into the record. Mr McNarry: If a party were unable to nominate to a subgroup, will a place be left open for them? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. It can be filled later if necessary. We will not beef-up the Committee with other parties. The positions will be left free. Mr McNarry: Would the group that was unable to attend be kept fully informed of the deliberations and receive the minutes and reports. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The subgroup would have to decide whether it wanted to have its proceedings reported by Hansard, as the PFG Committee has done from early on. If that happened, the parties that did not attend would get full details of what happened. However, that is a decision for the subgroups. I suspect that it would be best to keep the entire Assembly informed about what was going on in each subgroup but there may be reasons why that is not possible. 12.15 pm Mr Murphy: Is it then possible for a party not to attend subgroup meetings but use the requirement for consensus in PFG Committee meetings to substantially nullify any work done by a subgroup? The Chairman (Mr Wells): That could happen; a party could block a report from a subgroup. Everything has to be done by consensus, and the default position would be that there would be no report. Do you want to come back on that, Mr Murphy? Mr Murphy: Given the position outlined by William McCrea, it appears that two of the subgroups will be operating with one hand tied behind their back. If they are going to work on the devolution of policing and justice powers, and on the institutions — issues that all parties here have identified as necessary for the preparation for Government — then whatever work is done in those subgroups could simply be blocked when it comes back to this Committee. It is an unfair position to put the rest of the parties in. The DUP has decided to participate in the one subgroup that it is interested in and to not participate in the rest. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I know that Mr McFarland wants to come in, and I want to come to Mr Molloy as well. Mr McCrea, were you saying that you were not yet in a position to nominate to the other two subgroups, or that you were not nominating to the other two subgroups? Dr McCrea: I have no authority to nominate anyone. I do not believe that the subgroups should have been under the PFG Committee: I have stated that many times. However, I have to play by the rules. Other Members will find that they have to play by the rules too. Mr McFarland: I understood from our last meeting that Martin McGuinness said that there was no point in having subgroups if the DUP were not playing on them, as it would effectively nullify them for the reasons that Conor has just pointed out. We could spend all summer beavering away, producing the most brilliant things to which, when it gets back here, the DUP says no because it was not involved. I have more to do with my life than spend all summer in here beavering away, trying to do good, and have the whole thing wrecked when we come back at the end of August because the DUP has not been engaged. The logic is that either the DUP is engaged, or it is not. If it is engaged, then we will all work hard at this. If not, then I do not see much point, as Martin McGuinness said the last day, in us all spending time trying to solve things here if one of the major parties is not involved. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That only applies to two of the subgroups. The DUP is nominating to the economic subgroup. Dr McCrea: Mr McFarland should exercise his mind and find out what Martin McGuinness did say. He said that after beavering through the work, if Sinn Féin did not like the final report, his party would not even go to the Assembly to debate it. Why did Mr McFarland just choose the DUP? Why did he not reflect the fact that, after all the beavering away, and even if an excellent report which could be accepted at the PFG Committee were produced, Martin McGuinness said that if it did not suit him, none of his colleagues would go to the Assembly to debate it. It is supposed to be reported to the Assembly. He said that after all your work, as far as he was concerned, he would scupper it all, because he would not allow it to get to the Assembly. So perhaps Mr McFarland could turn some of his thoughts to Sinn Féin/IRA. Mr McFarland: Chairman, at our last meeting I made the comment strongly to Martin McGuinness about the difficulties that we faced if Sinn Féin were going to keep blocking normal debate. In fact, at one stage, several meetings ago, I made an impassioned plea to John O’Dowd that he take the issue back to the hierarchy and see whether it could reconsider its blocking of plenaries etc. Therefore, I am on record as stating that Sinn Féin should play its part in this. I am not one to speak for Martin McGuinness, but he said that if the DUP were not fully engaged in this, Sinn Féin were not going to take part. That is daft. We need all the parties in the Assembly to genuinely engage and try to find a way forward so that we can have a profitable summer and a profitable debate in September. However, I say again that there is no point in the rest of us working away here if either Sinn Féin or the DUP is not playing the game. Dr Farren: I ask the DUP to reflect on the curious position that it is adopting. It is hard to understand. The subgroup to deal with institutional matters would, I imagine, have as most of its agenda the very issues that were under discussion during the review of the operation of the Good Friday Agreement. As I understand it, the DUP had worked out the changes that it wanted to see to the operation of the institutions. Since those institutions — if we get up and running again — have to be operated by all of the parties, I fail to understand why the DUP is refusing to engage with the other parties or to try to convince them that its proposed changes should be adopted. Otherwise it is going to find that there is to be, as far as we are concerned, no engagement with them in any subsequent situation. That raises a fundamental issue. Perhaps it is because the DUP already has a sense of some guarantees from the Northern Ireland Office and Minister David Hanson with respect to the institutional changes that it is seeking. When this matter was being discussed in the House of Commons some months ago, David Hanson said that, given its mandate, the DUP had to have changes. Therefore, the party is taking it as read that the changes it seeks are already conceded. If that is the case, the Secretary of State must clarify to us what recognition he would give to any recommendations for change and what their purpose would be, particularly if we found ourselves in a situation in which one party seeking many changes decided to absent itself. Would that be because it already has guarantees that those changes would be made, and there was no point in talking to the rest of us? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Murphy and Mr McNarry are due to speak, but I think it is important, since we are dealing with the meeting that we had with the Secretary of State on 11 July, that Mr Molloy should let us know if there is anything that we have missed, or if there is anything that he wishes to add about the outcome of that meeting. Mr Molloy: You have covered all the issues of concern that we asked questions on, Mr Chairman. It is important to recognise the Secretary of State’s line that we set up the subgroups as quickly as possible. He made it clear that he wanted all the parties to engage in those subgroups and come up with reports to this Committee. He also said that in doing that, he hoped that this Committee would have a report to present to a plenary sitting in which all parties would take part. The question is whether the work will be done in this Committee to produce a report, and whether this Committee and the subgroups are going to be inclusive. We talked to the Secretary of State about the fact that some issues, particularly policing, justice and criminality, were being covered over. They were not being discussed, or were being brushed under the carpet. We asked him whether those issues would be dealt with. He clearly said that it would be up to the subgroups to deal with the issues. The subgroups would also be responsible for the issues raised by political parties in documents, reports and presentations. The roles of the subgroups and the direction of the Secretary of State are clear: the Committee must set up the subgroups and get the work done so that we have something to report at the end of the summer. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Can I ask you to stay, Mr Molloy, because we will return to this issue? Mr Murphy: I was not in attendance at the previous meeting, but I have read the Hansard report. Martin McGuinness’s comments on Sinn Féin’s stance on the work of the subgroups are clear. He also expressed his support for that work being debated in a plenary sitting. The DUP’s position on being involved in only one subgroup raises questions about the effectiveness of the other two subgroups. Seán Farren has asked a legitimate question about the institutions. If there were to be agreement and a report were to be compiled on how the outstanding issues arising from the review of the Good Friday Agreement should be handled, what would its status be, considering that, despite the DUP’s non-involvement, that party could still veto the report even going through this Committee? Although Sinn Féin is prepared to be involved in this work, I am loathe to ask members to come in and spend the summer working if there is no clear view of how their work will be progressed if one party is not involved and can block the work of this Committee. Where will that work stand in relation to both Governments — particularly the British Government — and what will its status be at the end of the consultation period? The DUP’s attitude raises questions as to how either of those two subgroups could work. The Chairman (Mr Wells): A party may sit in a subgroup and subsequently try to overturn a report at this Committee. We have checked with Arthur Moir, the Clerk to the Assembly, on this issue: if the report reached the Floor of the House, it could be made the subject of a petition of concern, which requires cross-community support. The report could also be blocked at that stage. It is important that members realise that several mechanisms could be used. Mr Murphy: If members were participating in a subgroup, the level of agreement on certain issues would be clear. It is proposed that four parties go off and discuss different issues. They will be completely in the dark about the DUP’s attitude on the subjects that they are discussing and may find that all their work comes to nought. That is a poor basis on which to ask people to spend their summer working. Mr McNarry: On the basis of what I have heard so far — and it is within my remit to say this — I am happy for a subgroup on economic challenges to produce a report in line with what is being discussed. However, is there consensus that a subgroup report would be sent to the Assembly for debate? We have talked about it loosely and have said that that might happen, but I want specifics. If a subgroup compiles a report and brings it to this Committee, would that report have a fairly quick passage to the Assembly for debate? Various mechanisms are in place, but we need to establish the status of the subgroup reports and the Assembly debate. It would be unsatisfactory to return to take-note mode. Mr McCrea has said that he does not have the authority to move on the issue of the two subgroups. We could deal with the issue of one subgroup, where there might be movement and on which we all could agree, or we could hold out for all three subgroups; that would be unfortunate. We must bear in mind that we have already debated the economy in the Assembly. The Assembly requested that a working group be set up and handled by a Committee other than this one, and that not only party experts, but outside experts, should be consulted. Either way, we can see the mechanism for setting up such a working group. However, simply setting up a subgroup will not be enough: we must be certain that if it meets and prepares a report for this Committee, the filibustering will not begin again because this Committee works on the principle of consensus — and it has yet to be decided whether the subgroup would have to reach unanimous or majority agreement on any such report, or whether, as Seán Farren asked, members who disagree with it can input into it. It would be appropriate that consensus in principle should be reached before we go down that route so that if this Committee received a report from a subgroup, a debate on it could take place. That seems logical, and the public would want it, too. 12.30 pm The Chairman (Mr Wells): It would be difficult for the Committee to make an upfront decision that there would be consensus before knowing the content of the report or the deliberations. That would be unusual. Mr McNarry: I did not say that; I said that there would be consensus in principle — in other words, the blocking mechanisms should sit here. Let us not forget that we are in this position because, for as long as I have been on the Committee, Sinn Féin has blocked every attempt to have a debate on the issues that we have discussed here. When there has been a debate, Sinn Féin has refused to go to it, yet its members sit around this table and talk about engagement. I am all for engagement, but that also involves debating. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I will take that as a proposal, Mr McNarry, and we will vote on it after Rev McCrea has spoken. I understand that has a tight deadline. Dr McCrea: Let me make this clear: the Secretary of State has told us that he is directing us. All we want is the Secretary of State’s mind on the matter. We must play by the rules. The Secretary of State said that he was directing the Committee to set up subgroups; therefore it is not in the Committee’s gift to set them up However, he said that he could not direct any party to participate in any subgroups, although he may want it to do so. Some members want to set up subgroups. I am sorry, but they have no power to do so. The Secretary of State has the power. I was reminded at the last meeting that this is the Secretary of State’s Assembly and that he had the power to issue directions. Members wanted direction and now they have it. The Secretary of State has directed them to set up subgroups; now that we have them, those that wanted them can be participants in them. The DUP is not preventing anyone from being a participant and from discussing those issues. Most of the Committee wanted to report to the Assembly on progress in this Committee, but, once again, Sinn Féin blocked that debate. Let us play by the rules. Sinn Féin cannot play by the rules one day and then object to another party playing by those rules the next. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Do not forget that. I want to make it abundantly clear that the Secretary of State’s direction said that he could not make any party participate in the subgroups. If parties were to participate, they could nominate one member from the Preparation for Government Committee and one other individual. I have made it clear from the very beginning that we are not here to negotiate. The Secretary of State gave the Committee a clear remit to scope the issues, and we are seeking to do what he told us to do. We have scoped the issues and have identified major obstacles to getting devolved government back — ongoing paramilitarism, criminality and thuggery, and the lack of support for the security forces in their efforts against the criminals in our society. I am sad to say that that support has not been forthcoming and was even regarded as a dead issue. I am pointing out that you can talk around the subject and cajole yourselves as much as you like, but the DUP delegation is stating that it will participate in and nominate to the subgroup on the economic challenges that face Northern Ireland, even though it does not believe that that subgroup should have come through this Committee — it should have come through the Business Committee. As the Secretary of State has directed that that subgroup should get off the ground, there is no reason why that cannot happen. However, I have no authority whatsoever to nominate to the other two subgroups. Mr Ford: Contributions from around the table have shown the limitations of this Committee with or without subgroups and emphasise that the significant business of restoring devolution will happen only when the two Governments engage in the process at whatever stage in the autumn they get round to it. There are dangers in taking the line that we should merely examine the economy, because, in one sense, that is too easy. Economic challenges face Northern Ireland regardless of whether there is devolution and regardless of the structures of that devolution. Frankly, the work done with the Northern Ireland Business Alliance and the other social partners in the past year or two has shown that very little prevents the five parties and the social partners from coming together on economic issues anyway. Therefore we could suggest that establishing the subgroup on the economic challenges means that some sort of work was being done. However, that would merely prove that we can discuss an easy topic but cannot tackle the real issues, which are the institutional issues and those that are concerned with the devolution of justice. If this Committee cannot tackle meaningfully those issues, perhaps it does not have a role to perform. I would have thought that, over the coming weeks when nothing else is happening, the Committee has a role to play by working on those issues. That may mean that a party that does not take part in the subgroups will have the power of veto in this Committee. However, I do not regard this Committee’s discussions and an Assembly debate as being the end of the process; they merely open it up for the negotiations in which the two Governments have to be major parties in the autumn. Frankly, the sooner we get down to that, the better. If that means that the subgroups work over the next six weeks — when the Governments are asleep — and get some of the groundwork done, I can see virtue in all three subgroups doing whatever work they can. Mr McFarland: We are possibly getting ahead of ourselves. For the fifty-fifth time, we must remind ourselves that this Committee was set up to scope or identify the issues; it is not a negotiation Committee. At the last meeting, we discussed the fact that we have identified some outline issues but that the detail of those is not at all clear. Therefore more work has to be done to identify exactly what we should look at within those larger issues. There is a difference between the two other subgroups that were discussed in the Secretary of State’s letter and the subgroup that the Assembly recommended. Mr McNarry’s suggestion that the subgroup on the economy should go ahead if we are all willing to take part in it makes lots of sense. Certainly, my party would need to consult further with its leadership if the DUP is not playing on the other two subgroups. There are concerns about whether we spend time blethering over the summer and have the whole thing crash in August. We support the formation of the subgroup on economics, because that was a separate Assembly recommendation, but we would need to have a timeout and discuss further whether, if all the parties are not engaged, it is worth our taking part in the other two. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mrs Dodds, does your point refer to the proposal? Mrs D Dodds: There are a couple of points that I want to raise. I would like Mr McNarry to restate his proposal so that we can go through it. There is an interesting point in that: we can do everything and anything that we want to with an economic subgroup. The report can come here and can be vetoed from going to the Assembly anyway, if that is the desire of one particular group. Mr McNarry has made a valid point, and it is worth teasing that out. The DUP has expressed concern about the subgroups. Our party is due to meet the Secretary of State to discuss those issues with him, and, until that happens, we have no authority to take those matters forward in this Committee. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is very helpful. Are you saying that the DUP is not saying no in principle to joining the subgroups, but that, as things stand, you do not have the authority to nominate? Mrs D Dodds: We do not have the authority to nominate to the subgroups, and I do not know whether we will nominate to them at all. However, as Mr McCrea said, the economy is a pressing matter that has been pushed through the Assembly and spoken about several times. Economic issues will be ongoing for a considerable time. Dr Farren: Given the more negative starting point, what has just been said is a little more positive. When will the DUP’s meeting with the Secretary of State take place? If that happens fairly soon that party could get clarification about the subgroups. Its concerns would also be allayed, and it would feel free to nominate — as it already can to the economic subgroup — and we would know for sure where we are likely to be. Given that members here have reservations about joining one subgroup because not everyone will join the other two, would it not be more appropriate for us to postpone taking decisions? Before we make our final decisions, therefore, would it not be better to hear definitively from the DUP whether it will nominate? Given that we are good at losing time, another day or two will not add to, or subtract very much from, our endeavours. Mrs D Dodds: I am happy to clarify as best I can. A number of telephone conversations took place last week, and those will be firmed up at a meeting reasonably soon. I do not have a diary date for that meeting because of holidays — the Westminster recess is due to start next week. However, I presume that it will be firmed up fairly soon. My party is firmly of the view that this Committee was set up to identify and scope the issues. Even though we do not agree that this matter should go through this Committee, the DUP is happy to take part in the economic subgroup because that subject has been debated and proposed as the will of the Assembly. However, the other subgroups will require further consideration. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Before I bring in Mr McNarry and Mr Ford, Seán’s proposal about postponing for a few days causes practical problems for the Committee’s Clerking arrangements. It is incumbent upon me as Chairman to point out that it will be incredibly difficult to complete our work in time, even if we had agreement this afternoon. We are talking about debating a report on 19 August so that the Committee can refer it to the Business Committee the following week for debate on 4 and 5 September. I have had discussions with the Clerks, and they have a full team that is assembled and ready to go. That is entirely in order, as it does not pre-empt any decision of the Committee. However, it had to be done in case we take the decision to go ahead. Dr Farren: My proposal tries to put pressure on the DUP to state a definitive position so that we all know precisely where we stand on the matter. Parties that feel that they would not participate in any of the subgroups because another party would not participate in two of them would know for definite that that was the situation. Would the DUP not bear in mind the points that were made about the pressures of servicing the subgroups? Could it expedite its consultation with the Secretary of State and let us know its position within 24 hours? Mr McFarland: Earlier, Dr Farren raised a point about whether there was any point in our discussing the issues if a deal has already been done between the Secretary of State and the DUP. He asked that clarification be sought from the Secretary of State on the position with regard to the DUP’s having been promised the measures contained in the comprehensive agreement. If such a deal has been struck, our discussions here are irrelevant. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Next to speak is Mrs Dodds, definitely followed by Mr McNarry. Mr McNarry has asked several times to speak, and I am conscious that having had one walkout I do not want a second. 12.45 pm Mrs D Dodds: I thank Mr McNarry for his patience. Diary dates are beyond my control. I do not want to take away from what Mr McNarry said, but there is a point that must be debated and a conclusion that must be reached. Will there be agreement that whatever comes back to this Committee from the subgroups will be debated in the Assembly? I read in the newspapers this morning that the Secretary of State would negotiate directly with Sinn Féin on policing and justice. I wonder, therefore, about the point of our discussions. Mr McNarry: Sinn Féin is in an enviable position. When the Ulster Unionists were in the position that the DUP is in now, there were separate negotiations and deals. We understand that, as we have experience of it. Sitting here, we have a sense of déjà vu: the situation may be new to the Democratic Unionist Party, but it is not new to Sinn Féin, which knows how to play its part well. Mrs Dodds has been open with us; she has told us what she can do and where the difficulties lie. However, she also told us of the likelihood of a decision being taken at an appropriate time. I do not know what the rest of the Committee thinks, but the weather is lovely — The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is the only thing on which we agree, Mr McNarry. Mr McNarry: On the basis of what I received in the post — and I thank the Committee Clerk for getting it to us in time — I came here today thinking that there was scope to move matters on. We can take a decision, Seán, on forming one subgroup, and we should. The Secretary of State’s direction stands irrespective of whether we move the matter back. Mr McCrea said that we would play by the rules, one of which says that a subgroup may meet whether or not all party representatives are present. I dislike intensely Sinn Féin’s attitude to debates; nevertheless, I respect its right to take that attitude. We should adopt that approach when making a judgement on any party, and implement point 5 of the Secretary of State’s letter. We should get down to work and get on with the subgroup on economic issues, in line with the Secretary of State’s direction. However, I have one reservation. It does not matter whether we take that decision today, although I would like us to do so. However, whenever we take that decision, we must reach consensus in principle that a report from the subgroup should find its way to the Assembly for debate. Otherwise, we are wasting our time because people will adopt the tactics of staying away or of saying that they need not say too much, and instead wait until matters come before this Committee where the rules require consensus. Therefore, the type of compromise indicated in the Secretary of State’s letter about decisions being taken by a simple majority is useless. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I shall call Mr Ford, who has been waiting for a while. After that, in the absence of anyone’s indicating disapproval of Mr McNarry’s proposal, I shall ask for consensus. Mr Ford: I met the Secretary of State last week. He said he would be setting up meetings with the five party leaders before Westminster rises for the summer, which effectively means that we are potentially waiting until the middle of next week. I presume that will create huge difficulties about the timetabling arrangements you spoke about. If we are examining that matter, we really must know that the potential timescale for the DUP to take a decision will be much sooner than the end of next week. I am not sure that we are in a position to proceed if the DUP cannot give us a better undertaking. Mr Molloy: On the original matter, we have a clear direction from the Secretary of State to set up the subgroups. Why do we not set up the subgroups? Some parties will wish to tie into that, other parties will still have the option to pull out. All parties have the option to pull out of those subgroups. The clear direction is for us to set up the subgroups today. After that, it is up to the parties whether they wish to participate. That may apply to one or more parties. The Chairman (Mr Wells): If we do not set up the subgroups today, it will be practically impossible, from the pure mechanics of it, to get this process finished. Mr McNarry has made a proposal. I think that I detect a proposal from Dr Farren as well. Dr Farren: On a point of procedure, I do not think that any proposals are required if we are moving to implement the direction of the Secretary of State. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is a different proposal, Mr Farren. It is the principle that if a report comes from the subgroups, it will be referred to the Assembly and that the Committee will not be exercising a veto to stop that from happening. I understand that you have a proposal seeking clarification from the Secretary of State on the comprehensive agreement. Dr Farren: That will come up in the course of discussion on the matters related to subgroup’s work, if the subgroup gets under way. I was probing the DUP at the time, if you recall. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I shall take Mr McNarry’s proposal. Mr McNarry, do you wish to formally move the proposal that we accept the principle that whatever comes from the subgroup or subgroups will go to the Assembly for debate? Mr McNarry indicated assent. Mr Murphy, what is your comment on that? Mr Murphy: It is difficult to accept the proposal on the basis that something may happen in the future. We have made it very clear that we want the subgroups to work. The logical process of that work is that whatever reports they can put together should come to this Committee for approval and then go to the Assembly for debate. We are quite happy for that to happen. However, it is illogical to make a commitment now on the basis that we are not even sure that the subgroups will work at all because the DUP will attend only one of them. That is the DUP’s indication to date. Others may, in the light of that, review their participation in all of the subgroups. It is not logical to make commitments on what we will do with the reports in six weeks’ time on the basis of this very shaky start. I can assure members, if they want assurance, that if the subgroups work properly and get reports back to this Committee, we are quite happy to debate those in plenary. However, I am not going to make a commitment now when we are not even sure that the subgroups are going to get off the ground at all. Mr McNarry: Conor, perhaps you understand that when Martin McGuinness was sitting where you are sitting, he was unable to give that assurance. He was unable to give any assurance. Sinn Féin’s position is based on whether it likes what it hears or reads, and an assurance has not been made. I have heard Sinn Féin’s words before, not just from your mouth, but from other representatives of your party. There is still an exit for you in what you have said. Mr Murphy: I was not at the last meeting, when Martin McGuinness talked about indications we had given to the Secretary of State, the British Prime Minister and the Taoiseach that: “we will play our part in any subcommittees because we believe that there is important work to be done. Sinn Féin passionately hopes that progress will be made and that the Preparation for Government Committee will be in a position, on the basis of the productive work that is being done, to put forward issues for debate in the Assembly. That is our position.” — [Official Report, Bound Volume 19, page CPG 232] I quoted from the Hansard report of what Martin McGuinness said at the last Committee meeting. That is our position, and it is fairly clear. However, on the basis that the DUP has indicated that it may engage in only one of the subgroups and that others therefore may have to review their positions, Sinn Féin will now not tie itself to the outcome and its attitude to it. Mr McNarry: You are only tying yourself to a principle. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr McNarry, it is clear that there is not consensus on this proposal. Mr McNarry: Anything that comes from this side of the table always seems to be met with a veto from the other side, so what is new? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Those are the rules by which we are bound. We are left in the position where we have a direction from the Secretary of State, telling us to establish the subgroups. We have no option. We must therefore move on to nominate representatives from this Committee and outsiders. For instance, Mr Ford has already advised us of names. We must also consider such issues as chairmanship and terms of reference. That does not have to be done by consensus; because it is an order from the Secretary of State we have to do it, but people do not have to turn up. Mrs D Dodds: Chairman, you mentioned chairmanship. Does it not say that each subgroup shall be chaired by either of the two independent Chairs? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes, but this Committee, by consensus, could decide to appoint three other chairmen to carry the load. However, as things stand, it would be for Mr Molloy and me to chair the subgroups, and we are prepared to do it. We are not going anywhere this summer. Mr Kennedy: What a sacrifice! The Chairman (Mr Wells): We might all have a very long holiday from 24 November, Mr Kennedy. Mr Ford: If the two of you are prepared to chair the subgroups as well as this Committee, you spare us one decision. Let us move on. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is entirely a matter for this Committee. Mr McFarland: Given that people are away over the summer, and that if the subgroups get up and running, there will be an intensive workload if we are to report by the middle of August. It would make sense to ask the other three parties to nominate a reserve, regardless of whether they are used, so that if neither you nor Mr Molloy are available the whole thing does not crash because there is no independent Chairman. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That proposal must reach consensus. Are there any variations? Mrs D Dodds: My party’s view is that there should be an independent Chairman set up by the Office of the Speaker. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There is no consensus, so it looks as if you are stuck with Mr Molloy and me. Mr Kennedy: As long as neither of you is run over by a bus. Mr Ford: It is good to see the DUP so keen on Mr Molloy’s taking the Chair so often. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is the Secretary of State’s decision and not mine. Mr McFarland: Chairman, are you looking for nominations? The Chairman (Mr Wells): No, we do not have consensus. Mr McFarland: I meant nominations for the subgroups. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Clerks have prepared a draft paper on procedures. It might be worth taking five minutes to look at it. The Committee Clerk: The first paper details procedures that would apply to all subgroups; attached to that are suggested terms of reference for each of the subgroups. All subgroups will operate under the same procedures as regards the number of members required for a quorum, for example. Rooms are available if parties wish to discuss these matters further. The Committee was suspended at 1.00 pm. On resuming — 1.09 pm The Chairman (Mr Wells): Have all members had a chance to look at the paper detailing draft procedures for the subgroups? Some procedural aspects are at the Committee’s discretion; others are subject to the Secretary of State’s direction. I want to re-emphasise a point that I did not make clear this morning. A question arose as to whether issues of criminality and decommissioning could be considered by the relevant subgroup. It is important that I should include in the record what the Secretary of State wrote: “I am content for the subgroup on devolution of justice and policing to consider issues of criminality and decommissioning if they agree to do so. It is of course also open to the PFG, under the direction I issued on 26 May 2006 establishing the PFG, to establish other sub committees to look at specific issues.” The letter makes clear that the answer to the question that Rev McCrea raised, as to whether that subgroup could consider criminality and decommissioning, is a definite yes. The letter was sent to Mr Molloy and myself in our roles as Chairmen to the Committee; it was not copied to the Committee, but copies will be distributed. It is important that members see that crucial paragraph. It is a commentary on the direction of 26 May. Members will also have copies of the suggested procedures for all three subgroups. We need to agree the procedures today if we are to establish the subgroups. Mr Kennedy: The suggested procedures are described as terms of reference, but what are the powers vested in the subgroups? In the previous Assembly, Committees had the power to call persons to appear and to request papers on a range of issues. The limited time available and the unlikely event of any of the subgroups actually doing anything make one cynical. However, it would be helpful to know the scope of the subgroups, in addition to the terms of reference, and whether that has been agreed. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is a very valuable point, Mr Kennedy. I am glad that you raised it. I understand that Statutory Committees of the Assembly have the power to call persons and request papers. We do not have such a power, but we can ask. I am sure that if a subgroup asked the NIO or the PSNI to give evidence or to send papers, they would — but they could not be compelled to do so. Similarly, I suspect that the CBI or DETI would appear before the subgroup on economic challenges, for example. However, neither we, as a Committee, nor a subgroup can call a person or body to the Bar of the House and admonish them for not turning up. Mr Kennedy: If they were established, would the subgroups have a role such as you outlined? The Chairman (Mr Wells): We can ask anyone to provide the Committee with evidence, as any Committee of the Assembly can, but we do not have that overarching power of compulsion. Mr Murphy: In relation to the letter that you read out, were the Secretary of State’s clarifications of the issues that are of concern to us made available to the DUP before its decision not to participate in those two subgroups? I ask because you made particular reference to an issue that was of particular concern to William McCrea, who raised it at the last meeting. For our own understanding of what is going on, I would like to know whether that was clear to the DUP before its decision not to participate or whether it was still an outstanding point of concern. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am seeking advice from Mr Molloy on that. I think that the letter was in my pigeonhole on the evening of July 11. Certainly, there was not time to show it to anyone else before this morning. In fact, as I read from it this morning, I was unaware that Mr Molloy and I had received the letter but that, at that stage, no one else had. That is why I thought it important that the letter be copied to everyone. I thought that it had been attached to the papers containing the Secretary of State’s direction, but it was not. It lists the Secretary of State’s comments on the issues raised by the Committee. The DUP had no knowledge of the letter until parts of it were read out this morning. Mr Murphy: Therefore, the letter could have some bearing on the DUP’s decision on the policing and justice subgroup. 1.15 pm The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. Dr McCrea raised that issue, and from what he said, it appeared to me that he was not aware of the contents of the relevant paragraph, which states that criminality and decommissioning could be considered. That is why it dawned on me that he had not seen the letter, and I, therefore, felt it important that it be copied to each party. I hope that that is clear to everyone. Mr Molloy, can you recall when you received the letter? Mr Molloy: I think that I received mine in the post on Saturday morning, meaning that it was probably in my pigeonhole on either Wednesday or Thursday. I referred to the letter earlier when I mentioned the Secretary of State’s comments. Of course, Mr McCrea and other members did not have a copy of it then. However, I referred to it and suggested that a subgroup on policing and justice could address the issues that have been raised in this Committee and on previous occasions. Mr McNarry: Mr Chairman, in case it is the intention of Sinn Féin and Conor Murphy to suggest as much, can I make it clear that neither your integrity nor Mr Molloy’s are in doubt? There is no implication that letters that you receive are shown to your parties before they are passed to the other parties. I understand that that is not your role and that you are independent Chairmen, and it would be best for the Committee if we could agree to work on that basis. There will be occasions when you will get letters, and temptation could be a challenge to you. By the same token, Mr Molloy could show letters that he receives to members of his party. The Committee must work on a better basis than that. Mr Murphy: I want to make it clear that my question did not refer to Mr Wells’s integrity as a Chairman. Rather it was to know whether the DUP had been aware of the letter. There was further reference to the DUP’s having had several phone conversations with the Secretary of State over the past few days, and my question was to ascertain whether it was aware that the policing and justice issues would be referred to a subgroup. If the DUP was not aware of that possibility, would the contents of the letter have an implication on its decision? The Chairman (Mr Wells): I thank members for their clarification. To avoid ambiguity, it was important for members to see the letter. It was the Secretary of State’s intention that the letter be seen by the entire Committee. However, with the summer holidays, there was a degree of confusion. I am glad that members at least have the letter now. Mr Molloy: I wish to clarify that I did not circulate the letter to members of my party. Mr McNarry: I am glad that you made that point. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It was obvious from the reaction of the members here that no one had seen the letter. Mr McNarry: It does not stop the NIO circulating documents. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We shall move on to the draft guidelines that the Committee Clerks have kindly provided for us. Perhaps we should consider them point by point. Mrs D Dodds: Have these guidelines been prepared by the Clerks, using — The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Clerks have a lot of experience of our normal Committee procedures. Also, given that we have no option but to, they have taken account of the directions from the Secretary of State. Are there any comments on the first point? Mr McFarland: Are you referring to the terms of reference? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes, the procedures for subgroups. It starts: “The terms of reference for the subgroups will be those agreed by the Committee on the Preparation for Government”. Is everyone agreed? Mr McFarland: On the terms of reference? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes, in other words, this Committee agrees the terms of reference for the subgroups. I think that that is taken as read: we have no choice. Dr Farren: Are you proposing that we agree the terms of reference as listed? The Chairman (Mr Wells): No, no. We need to go through them. Simply to agree them would be a bit presumptuous. Dr Farren: I thought you were inviting us to agree what is there. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Unfortunately, we do not have any discretion on section 2, which deals with the membership of the subgroups. We have been told that each party must provide one Member who sits on the Committee on the Preparation for Government and one other Assembly Member. That will put quite a burden on the Alliance Party because it has only two members available to sit on the three committees. It will be quite busy. Mr Ford: We are up to it, Chair; do not worry. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Committee can note that that is how it will work. Mr Murphy: Is there not flexibility in the arrangement to allow for substitutions? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. The Secretary of State said that he is happy for deputies to be appointed. Given that it is almost August, we will have to use that discretion, because it is unrealistic for everyone around this table to be available for the next month. Only Mr Molloy and I are available for the entire time. Any nominated deputies must be available, so members need to check with their colleagues. It has been decided that Mr Molloy and I will chair the subgroups. We need to consider the issue of having a quorum for those subgroups. What is the plural of quorum? The Committee Clerk: Quora. Mr McCarthy: With your knowledge and recent award from ‘The Politics Show’, you should have known that, Chair. [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Wells): I was just lucky. The quorum for this Committee is seven. It has never been an issue because there has normally been a good turnout. Excluding the chairperson, what does the Committee feel about the quorum being six or seven for the subgroups, which will comprise 10 members, with two from each party? Ms Gildernew: It probably has to be six, given the fact that if it were seven, four parties would have to participate. The quorum should be six in case one party decides not to participate. Mr Ford: Given that the voting is specified in the direction as voting by a simple party majority, would it not be simpler to also spell out the quorum in party terms so that the quorum is three parties? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Technically, that means that a subgroup might have only three people. Dr McDonnell: The quorum for the subgroups should be at least six members from at least three parties. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I feel that that is a better option. Are there any other suggestions? Mr Ford: If there are at least six members there will be at least three parties, given that there are only two members from each party. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is where the deputies come in. Mr McNarry: Why are extra members allowed on those subgroups and not on this Committee? Ms Gildernew: That is because you cannot split the Committee in half, David. Mrs D Dodds: I am happy to listen to members’ views on procedures for the subgroups. My party has not taken a decision on the forming of the subgroups. We will not agree fully to procedures and drafts that we received only 10 minutes ago, but will seek to return to them. The DUP will take up a number of issues in relation to the subgroups with the Secretary of State. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr McCrea has agreed to submit nominations for the economic subgroup. May I take it that the DUP is agreed on that one? Mrs D Dodds: I am concerned about some of the things that we are told are directions from the Secretary of State — I would argue that those are not directions. As we proceed, I will make those concerns known. I am happy to listen to members’ views, but I will not sign up my party to a subgroup when I know that it will be unhappy about some of the procedures. Dr Farren: Perhaps you will tell us what some of those procedures are. Mrs D Dodds: We are unhappy with point 7. Dr Farren: That is a direction. Mrs D Dodds: That is why we are going to see the Secretary of State. That is the kind of concern we want to make clear to the Secretary of State. Mr McNarry: May we possibly have a ruling on this? I respect what Mrs Dodds and Rev William McCrea have said. Although I am not saying that the DUP is in a privileged position, it is saying that it has the opportunity to meet the Secretary of State. We have conceded that the meeting will take place and we respect that. How would the Committee deal with a similar situation should it arise? A party could say that it had a meeting with the Secretary of State to discuss issues that cross over into matters that were discussed in this Committee, but, rather than discuss them in the Committee, it wanted to discuss them with the Secretary of State to decide what to do. That seems to be locking the Committee out. The DUP is doing it now, but any party could adopt that attitude. My party leader has a meeting with the Secretary of State, and meetings will continue until November. Is there some way that we can establish where we are going? With due respect to Mrs Dodds and the DUP, we cannot make progress. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I will take a round of members on this subject. Mrs D Dodds: I want to clarify the point. I accept fully what Mr McNarry says — any party can say: “Hold on, you have to wait until we see the Secretary of State”. It is not just the Secretary of State to whom we will speak; we will also speak to the rest of the party about our attitude to the issues. I accept that it would be unreasonable for any party to adopt such a blocking attitude. However, my party considers that the setting up of subgroups is moving the guidelines. The DUP agreed to sit on the Committee to scope issues that were hindering the return of devolution. We have sat on this Committee faithfully for several weeks and have identified issue after issue, yet there was not even agreement that they should go to the Assembly for debate. We are still here, and that is an act of good faith that devolution is important to the DUP. However, you also must respect that the Secretary of State has moved some issues on significantly, and that requires debate. I will return to the Committee on the matter. Mr McNarry: That is significant and I am very grateful. In effect, the DUP is saying that the Committee has fulfilled its scoping exercise and now the DUP wants to talk to the Secretary of State about the next steps. It is entitled to do that, but it is taking the matter to the Secretary of State rather than to this Committee. It is saying that it studiously attended the Committee meetings and carried out the task of scoping; but now the Committee is turning itself into something else and the DUP wants to discuss that with the Secretary of State. Mrs D Dodds: And with the party. Mr McNarry: And then with the party. Quite honestly, until that discussion takes place, that is a very definite position adopted by the DUP. Mr Ford: When the Secretary of State issues a direction, this Committee must work with it. Each of us may wish to go running to the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister, the Taoiseach, the President of the United States or whoever else we fancy to get the direction changed, but if the Committee does not work with the direction before it when it meets, it will never get anywhere. The subgroups should not come as a surprise to anyone around the table today. Weeks ago we said that we would now be — in Alan MacFarland’s elegant phrase — “mining down” that which we had previously “scoped out”. If nothing else we are doing wonders for the English language. In fact, we knew what was coming. Our draft procedures are based on existing Assembly procedures and the directions from the Secretary of State. I do not know that we can do anything else. Frankly, if the DUP does not send people of sufficient seniority to take decisions for the party, and if every issue raised requires a DUP adjournment for full party consultation, then it does not treat this Committee seriously. Other people are here with a remit from their parties to take decisions within the broad parameters of where the Committee has been going. What we discuss today cannot be a secret. I do not see how we can be expected to continue postponing decisions every week. 1.30 pm Mr McFarland: Chairman, this is simple. We cannot get past the procedures for subgroups or the terms of reference without consensus on this body. Mrs Dodds is not able to give consensus because she has to talk to the Secretary of State. There is no point; we will not get consensus either on the procedures, because this Committee has to have consensus on them, or on the terms of reference, because point 1 states that the terms of reference are to be agreed by this Committee. We will not get past those two things because — unless I misunderstood — Mrs Dodds made it clear that she has no authority to make decisions in advance of the meeting with the Secretary of State and a meeting with her party. Mrs D Dodds: I have considerable authority to take this forward along a particular line that my party has clearly and openly set out. I am given five minutes to look at a set of procedures and terms of reference, which are significant, which we may wish to add to or take away from, and consider. It is not inappropriate to do that at that stage, as I said earlier. Moreover, some of the directions in this are very difficult for my party. They move from the Secretary of State saying: “I am content for them to operate by a simple majority of voting” to: “Decisions of a subgroup shall be by a simple majority of those voting.” Mr McFarland: Chairman, I do not judge whether it is right or wrong. From what Mrs Dodds has said, this is not solvable today. No matter how many times we go round the room, it will not be solvable, in that the DUP is unable — rightly or wrongly — to give authority and agreement to either the procedures or the terms of reference. The Chairman (Mr Wells): No doubt a meeting with the Secretary of State will move this forward a bit. The problem is that, from the purely practical point of view, I do not know how much time we can afford to adjourn for these issues. Mr McFarland: Unless Mrs Dodds is prepared to change her mind and to give consensus to procedures and terms of reference, which she has just said she is not prepared to do — and given that we are not into subgroups where it is by a majority, we can all vote, and therefore consensus is not required — if the DUP is unable to give consensus to these two issues, it does not matter how many times we go round this, it is not solvable. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Secretary of State could issue another determination and make all these mandatory. Mr McFarland: Absolutely. No problem at all. What I say is that now, at this meeting, as we stand here at 1.35 pm today, this is not solvable. Dr Farren: Neither Mrs Dodds nor her party has any discretion with respect to point 7 on the procedures for the subgroup. The key direction is point 6 in the determination made by the Secretary of State: “Decisions of a subgroup shall be by simple majority of those voting.” So the reference to contentment, or whatever, is a reference that has no other interpretation than that which is there by determination. Therefore we should proceed on that issue, because, as I understand the English language, it is not within our discretion to say otherwise — to say that he is wrong. Mr McFarland: My understanding is that the Committee must have consensus on this document, “Procedures for Sub-Groups”, regardless of individual choice. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Committee must have consensus only on those elements that are not subject to a direction. We have two documents: one is the explanatory letter from the Secretary of State, which has no standing apart from that; the second is the direction by which we must abide. Point 6 of the direction clearly states that decisions must be taken by majority vote. Mr McFarland: Mrs Dodds can choose whichever one of these she objects to, or all of them, or none of them. She is required to give her consensus to this document — is that correct? The Chairman (Mr Wells): She is required to give consensus only to the points that are not directions. Mr McFarland: This document is headed “Procedures for Sub-Groups”. Is she required to give consensus to this document? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. Mr McFarland: Therefore, she is required to give consensus. Point 1 states that the DUP is also required to give consensus to each of the pages headed “Terms of Reference”. For whatever reason, rightly or wrongly — we are not making a judgement — Mrs Dodds has said that she is not prepared to agree to the page headed “Procedures for Sub-Groups”, nor is she prepared to agree to the three subsequent pages. Unless Mrs Dodds changes her mind and says that she is prepared to give consensus to either the procedures or the terms of reference, it does not matter how many times we go round this subject. If the DUP will not move, we can spend the rest of the afternoon discussing the issue and be no further on at 5.00 pm. Mr Ford: Seán Farren has already made the precise point that I was going to make on the specifics. Can the Committee Clerks, who have had more time to examine the procedures than I have, please advise us which procedures are not subject to a direction? It appears to me that the majority are directions. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Certainly, points 2, 7, 9 — Mr Ford: Point 1 is as well — is it not? The Chairman (Mr Wells): No. Point 1 is at the Committee’s discretion. There is no direction stating that we have to agree terms of reference. Point 3 is the Committee’s decision, which we have made through consensus. Point 5 is entirely a matter for this Committee and the subgroups. There is no direction on whether the subgroups meet in public or use Hansard. The document contains a mixture of directions and issues at our discretion. Any party can object to the terms of reference and the procedures, and we hit the wall again. Mr McFarland: There is no point in going around this for another 10 minutes. Mrs Dodds is adamant and has said several times that she does not have the authority to agree these points without meeting the Secretary of State and her party. Unless the DUP changes its mind, it does not matter how long we discuss the issue. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There is another option. We can set up the subgroups and let them decide on their own procedures by majority. Mr McFarland: Are we saying that these subgroups can agree their own terms of reference? The Chairman (Mr Wells): We could do that, apart from those points that are directions. Mr Ford: Point 2 is a direction. Dr Farren: Yes, that is right. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We could simply go with point 2 and establish the subgroups. By majority decision, the subgroups could decide to meet in public, use Hansard, or whatever. That is the other option. Mr McFarland: If we take the Assembly as a precedent, can you see an Assembly Committee agreeing to allow a subcommittee to go off into the ether and decide what it wants to do? Mr Ford: Would the Assembly have voluntarily set up this Committee in this format, with its remit and rules? We are not in charge of the territory at all. Mr McFarland: We have a difficulty here. Until the Democratic Unionist Party meets the Secretary of State and decides whether it is taking part or agreeing the procedures and terms of reference — however much we may disagree with that position and find it frustrating — it will be hard to get round. If the DUP is saying that it will never take part in any of these subgroups, we are into a different game. The Secretary of State will produce another direction telling the rest of the parties to go ahead with the work. There is no problem with that. Nevertheless, we are in limbo, where consensus is required and we cannot get it, however much we might wish to have it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): You are wrong, Mr McFarland. We could go through these procedures line by line and not reach consensus on half a dozen points, but still be left with the three directions that are sufficient to establish the subgroups. Mr McNarry: We have heard from the DUP that it cannot nominate members to two of the subgroups. That party voted to nominate to one subgroup, but there was no consensus. The Chairman (Mr Wells): No, we did not. We had a vote on whether it would go to the Assembly. Mr McFarland: We thought that there was agreement on the economic subgroup because all parties agreed to sit on it. However, Chairman, you raised the point of whether Mrs Dodds agrees to the terms of reference and the procedures for the subgroups, and the DUP has said that it cannot agree to those. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mrs Dodds has a specific point. Mrs D Dodds: I wish to clarify a principle. Mr McCrea said earlier that the DUP was prepared to attend and work on the economic subgroup. That is a point of principle, and it is there for all to hear and see. We are concerned that that goes ahead. However, we are unhappy that it will proceed through this Committee, as it should have gone through the Business Committee. That is a point of principle. We now come to the nitty-gritty of where the procedures for those subgroups are, and we have difficulties with some of them. Mr McFarland rightly clarified that we can agree some procedures, but other points are directions over which we believe that we have no authority. I particularly object to the directions. I am sorry that he feels frustrated by that, but that is the situation. I have readily agreed to point 3, which can be agreed in this Committee, but there are some directions that my party is not happy to sign up to now. Dr Farren: There are many directions that the SDLP is not happy with, and I have emphasised several times during our deliberations that I am frustrated, and am almost politically castrated, that we are subject to directions from the Secretary of State all the time and that we cannot decide how to conduct ourselves. We are reluctant to have to operate under a set of directions, but we are prepared to do so. Given that the DUP has accepted that it will participate in the economic subgroup, we can proceed to establishing all the subgroups, as the direction has indicated, and the DUP can discuss its reservations with the Secretary of State. I would be surprised if the Secretary of State changed his directions at this stage, but I should not, perhaps, be that surprised if that were to happen, considering how the NIO tends to bend towards whatever force is applied to it. It is likely that we will talk ourselves out of moving ahead. Therefore, we should proceed and set up the subgroups. If we are unable to agree terms of reference here, the Secretary of State may direct what those may be, or — miracle of miracles — the subgroups may come up with an agreed set of terms of reference. However, we should proceed according to the direction before us. Mr Kennedy: Chairman, my point goes to the centre of the debate; it is a technicality: can subgroups be established — with procedures or directions, or both — without the consent of all of the parties? 1.45 pm The Chairman (Mr Wells): The answer to that is yes. Several items on the list are directions on which we cannot make a decision; they do not require consensus or a majority vote. Even if everything else falls, they will still stand and will be enough to set up the subgroups. Points 2, 7 and 9 are clear — they set up the subgroups, which can then agree their own procedures. However, one party has made it clear that it is unhappy and that it wants to take further advice on the issue. Mr McFarland made the valid point that it is important to consider that. Mr Kennedy: However, Chairman, your ruling is that it is possible to establish the subgroups by virtue of a mixture of procedures and directions. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes, absolutely. In fact, we have agreed on the chairmanship, and it looks as if we have probably agreed on quorums as well. Mr Kennedy: You have no concerns about unanimity consent? The Chairman (Mr Wells): It seems that some items will not be unanimously agreed. They will fall, and they will not be part of the terms of reference. Mr Kennedy: Therefore they will be procedures rather than directions. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. However, the Secretary of State may step in immediately and make them directions. That would be the third or fourth time that he has done so. Dr McDonnell: Which items will fall? The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will go through them one by one to see where we stand. Mr McNarry: Could you not get the Secretary of State here to answer the questions as we go through them instead of all this toing and froing? The Chairman (Mr Wells): If the subgroups could summon the Secretary of State on an issue, I am sure that he would come. Are we agreed on point 1? Mr McFarland: Can I ensure that I understand this procedural issue correctly? After all, much of this involves procedure. The agenda for the Preparation for Government Committee lists items to be agreed or not agreed. Is it correct to say that that is what an agenda is? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Unless they are directions. Mr McFarland: OK. Item 4 on the agenda of this Committee — which requires consensus — deals with the quorum for subgroups. You have already raised that issue, and ta-da! we have agreement on it. Is that correct? We had a vote, and there was consensus. The next item deals with the procedures for subgroups, which is on the agenda presumably because this Committee has to agree it. Is that correct? Here are the procedures for subgroups. No matter what it says, this bit of paper goes on the agenda for agreement — or not — by this Committee, which operates by consensus. Is that correct? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. Mr McFarland: Therefore the question is: is this agreed or not? Consensus agreement is required. We can go through each item on the agenda and when we come to a direction, we can say that even though it is on our agenda, it does not require a vote. However, item 1 says: “The Terms of Reference for the Sub-groups will be those agreed by the Committee on the Preparation for Government.” Therefore item 1 requires consensus in this Committee. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Which we have achieved. Mr McFarland: No, no — are you saying that we have achieved consensus on the terms of reference for subgroups? The Chairman (Mr Wells): We put item 1 to a vote and got consensus on it. Dr Farren: The terms of reference have yet to be agreed. We have not agreed them. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Item 1 has been agreed to. Mr Murphy: It is agreed that the Committee will agree them, but we have not agreed them. [Laughter.] Dr Farren: That was my point about half an hour ago. Mr Murphy: We have agreed the mechanism for agreeing the terms of reference, but not the terms of reference themselves. Mr McFarland: Yes, but what did the Chairman say a short time ago? Mr Murphy: I understand your point. Mr McFarland: He said that we should abandon all this and let the subgroups decide their own terms of reference. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I did not say that; I said that that was an option for the Committee. Mr McFarland: It is not an option. The Committee has already decided — by reaching consensus on item 1 — that it should not be an option, and that this Committee will decide the terms of reference. That option is, therefore, not an option, because the DUP has told us that it will not agree the terms of reference of any of the subgroups. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There is a difference between terms of reference and procedures. Mr McFarland: Follow me through this again: under item 4, we are required to agree this document of procedures. Is that correct? Mr Ford: We will be given the opportunity to — Mr McFarland: No, it is in here. It requires agreement. Mr Ford: But certain consequences flow if the Committee does not agree the terms of reference. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We are not required to agree all of them. We could agree four of them, and three of those are determinations on which we have no option but to agree. That is what we are left with. If we do that, we will have enough to set up subgroups. Mr McFarland: Follow me through this: we cannot have subgroups without terms of reference. Is that correct? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. Mr McFarland: This Committee has voted by consensus that it will decide on terms of reference. Is that correct? The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is correct. Mr McFarland: This Committee agrees by consensus. The DUP said that it would not agree, by consensus, terms of reference. Therefore, it does not matter whether we set the subgroups up or not — they have no terms of reference. We cannot set up a subgroup without terms of reference. Which bit of that do we not understand? Mr Ford: I want to ask rather than answer a question on that. At that point, does paragraph 2 of the direction not apply? If the Committee has not established terms of reference, then each subgroup will deal with matters as stated in the direction. Mr McFarland: We have already taken a vote under paragraph 1 that said that this Committee will, by consensus — Mr Ford: I am not sure that this Committee can vote to overrule the direction. We may vote on something to enhance, expand or interpret the direction, but we cannot overrule it. Dr Farren: Alan, with all due respect, you are talking us into a spiral out of which we will not emerge with any satisfactory outcome. I am sure that the Chairman will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the Committee can set up the subgroups. If we fail to agree the terms of reference, my guess is that they will be determined for us. We should not tie ourselves in knots about the terms of reference at this point. About all that we can do for the rest of the afternoon is set up the subgroups. That is all the discretion that we have. Indeed, we do not have even that discretion; all that we can do is nominate. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I cannot call for consensus on that: it is a determination. Mr McFarland: We have been told that the subgroups exist; all that we are required to do is nominate or not nominate to them. Subgroups can do nothing other than exist — which they do already — without terms of reference on what they are supposed to do. There is no agreement on the terms of reference, because we took a vote that this Committee should agree the terms of reference. The Committee cannot agree the terms of reference because there is no consensus in the DUP — The Chairman (Mr Wells): If it is helpful, we can ask the Secretary of State to issue another determination. Mr McFarland: I am more than happy with that. The point that I am trying to make is that we cannot decide anything further today. Dr Farren: Probably not. Mr McFarland: I have tried to think of ways of getting round the issue. However, we got ourselves into a loop whereby we have decided that only we can decide the terms of reference. If we had decided that we could not follow paragraph 1, but had delegated the matter to the subgroups, we would have been under way. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The crucial point that you have missed is that we have agreed that we will establish the terms of reference. However, it may be that all we are left with after this procedure is the three directions. That is what we agreed. Then we could go ahead with our subgroups. Mr McFarland: With the best will in the world, you cannot have a subgroup that has no idea of what it is doing. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Secretary of State has given the subgroups the power to agree their own procedures. Mr McFarland: Not in his terms of reference — or perhaps he has. Dr Farren: No, not yet. Mr McFarland: No, but if he does — Dr Farren: Let us leave it at that, Alan. Let us agree the subgroups and get out of here in five minutes. Dr McDonnell: Is it possible for us to screen the procedures and determine the question that I asked 10 or 15 minutes ago about which points we agree, which points are directions and which are not? Where are the obstacles on the list? The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is what I am trying to do. Let us work down the list. We have already agreed point 1, and we have no option on point 2. Mr Kennedy: Point 2 is a determination. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes; we have no option on that. Point 3 is agreed. Mr McFarland: Point 4 is a problem because the DUP said that it could not agree the matter until it had consulted the Secretary of State. We will not see any light on that point. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is there consensus on six members as the quorum for the subgroups? Mr McFarland: My understanding is that Diane Dodds said that she could not agree that matter. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The DUP said that it could not agree that matter, so there is no consensus. Presumably, there is no consensus on seven members either. Dr Farren: How many members would the DUP want? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are there any thoughts on what the quorum should be? Dr Farren: It cannot be more than 10. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is there consensus on seven members as the quorum for the subgroups? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It will be up to each subgroup to decide whether it wishes to meet in public or in closed session. That includes a decision on whether — Mr McFarland: I am sorry, Mr Chairman, but I would like to make a point. Before we get past that matter and so that everyone understands: there are 10 members on each subgroup. It is standard practice to have quorums of about 30% or 40% on most committees. We are looking at 70% attendance for a quorum. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Substitutes can be used. Mr McFarland: We are still looking for seven out of 10 members to be present at every meeting. The Chairman (Mr Wells): If you agree to nominate nine members, with the ability to bring in substitutes, surely we have enough among the parties to do that. If the Ulster Unionist Party Assembly Group appoints half a dozen people to act as substitutes to be called upon — Mr McFarland: I understand that. On the average day, with people bobbing in and out, is it more achievable to have six people in the room as a quorum? I am not talking about who is here, because if we go under seven we become inquorate and so we must stop. We could end up with a fairly small number in the room at one time. Is six more achievable than seven? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr McFarland, the problem is that the DUP has already said that it will not agree to a quorum of six. Mr McFarland: My understanding is that the DUP would not agree to anything. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The DUP has agreed to a quorum of seven. Mr McFarland: I ask the DUP: what is the practical, realistic difference? On an average day when we meet as a subgroup, it is more achievable to have six rather than seven people in the room at any one time. I am not talking about who is nominated to attend; I am talking about the practicalities of people wandering in and out. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have moved past that matter, Mr McFarland: we have agreed on seven. Mr McFarland: At our last meeting, a member nodded assent on something to which, had he stopped to think, he would never have agreed. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I thought that Mr Dawson and Mrs Dodds expressed themselves quite clearly. Mr McFarland: I understood that they had to take the matter to their party. That is now not the case. They have agreed on seven. Dr Farren: Yes; let us leave it at that. We have agreement on something. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Can we move to point 5? It will be for each subgroup to decide whether it wishes to meet in public or in closed session. That includes a decision on whether Hansard is present. Is that agreeable by consensus? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Point 6 states that the dates of the meetings of each subgroup will be a matter for the Chairperson. Mr Kennedy: I have a concern on that point, Mr Chairman. There should be consensus among the members of the subgroup. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That would be a majority of the members of the subgroup. Should we change “Chairperson” to “subgroup”? Is everyone happy with that? Members indicated assent. Point 7 is a determination, and we have no choice. There may be some ambiguity in the letter, but it is clear in the draft procedures. Point 8 states: “The Sub-groups will not take any decisions on behalf of the Committee on the Preparation for Government.” That is a reasonable suggestion. 2.00 pm Mr Kennedy: Why is it there? The Chairman (Mr Wells): So that they do not take powers unto themselves and become little empires. The Clerks have clarified that this is to stop the subgroups making reports directly to the Assembly and bypassing this Committee. Reports must be authorised by us, and it must be on the basis of consensus. Mr McFarland: Is it not a determination by the Secretary of State that they have to report back to us anyway? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Not as it stands, although I am sure he would give you that if you wanted it. Mr McFarland: I thought there was something on this already. Yes: “Each subgroup shall report to the Preparation for Government Committee in accordance with the terms of reference”. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes, but there is nothing to stop them reporting directly to the Assembly. That is the only reason that point 8 is there. It is a safeguard worth keeping. Point 9 is important because you have agreed the quorum as seven, so it is a matter for the subgroup to decide if deputies may attend meetings if members of the subgroup are unable to do so. Mr Ford: Are we not to determine today that deputies will be entitled to attend? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do we have consensus on that? If so, it would get us around the problem. Mr Ford: It would be better to spend two minutes here than half an hour at each of three meetings. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is everyone happy that we say that deputies can attend the subgroups? Members indicated assent. Mr Kennedy: Chairman, it is important that the word “deputies” does not contain a capital letter. [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have got around that difficulty, and will move on to the terms of reference for the economic subgroup. Mr Dawson: Just before moving on, Mr Chairman, although you may have got around the difficulty, the DUP has not given consensus to point 7. We have requested a meeting with the Secretary of State for matters to be clarified. Even though subgroups have been established, we are not happy with — The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have noted that. The Secretary of State’s view was that if decisions were not to be taken by simple majority the subgroups would run into the same brick wall as the PFG Committee has run: that we can move nowhere without consensus. That is the reasoning, but you can take it up directly with the Secretary of State. We move on to the economic challenges facing Northern Ireland. These are the terms of reference, as opposed to the procedures: “1. To identify the major impediments to the development of the economy in Northern Ireland.” Dr Farren: I suggest an amendment to point 3: “To consider how other matters, including a peace dividend, could contribute”. I hope that this will meet with general consent, because the terms of reference are rather narrowly constrained. Matters such as improvements, education, training, infrastructure — and we need not debate them here — might need to be referred to in the work of such a subgroup. Therefore to consider “other matters, including a peace dividend” only adds to point 3 and takes away nothing from it. Another way round it would be to add: “any other matters which may be considered relevant” as point 4. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Any views on that? Any problems? Agreed? Does that presume that we are happy with points 1 and 2? Dr Farren: I was only entering something to point 3. Mr McNarry: Just leave it there, Seán. Dr Farren: I was not expressing any view about 1 or 2. Dr McDonnell: If it is appropriate — [Laughter.] — give me a break. Mr Kennedy: That will be in Hansard. Dr McDonnell: I will take advice and guidance from you, Mr Chairman, and other members of the Committee — point 2 needs to be tightened and focused. I am particularly keen that direct reference be made to newer technologies, because that is where our economy is slipping behind. Massive opportunities are often missed in that regard — because biotechnology infrastructure is not there, for example. Perhaps I am going into too much detail. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I suspect that you are, Dr McDonnell. I assume that you will be the SDLP representative on that subject and, as such, you will wish to raise that issue. Dr McDonnell: Thank you, Chairman. Mr Kennedy: Are you nominating Dr McDonnell for that position, Chairman? The Chairman (Mr Wells): The direction is quite clear: members can raise any issue directly relevant to the economic challenges facing Northern Ireland — that is a wide remit, I can tell you. If Dr McDonnell wishes to raise that issue at the first meeting, I am sure that the Chairman will be happy for him to do so. Do any other members have problems? Mr Dawson: I am concerned at the use of the words “peace dividend”; would “economic package” be a better term? There are other factors to be considered apart from how an economic package could contribute to economic regeneration and how such a package might be delivered. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Does anyone have any problems with that? Mr Murphy: The term “peace dividend” has a particular focus in relation to a package of support from both Governments to assist restoration of all institutions and to try to get this institution back on the road. It is quite focused in relation to its meaning; “economic package” is a general term. “Peace dividend” is quite clear as regards the arguments made to both Governments about a financial package to specifically underpin the restoration of devolution. Dr Farren: I am sure that the meaning will be spelt out. It will give people the opportunity to use the language with which they are more comfortable. Mr Dawson: An economic package is much broader than the narrower term “peace dividend”. There is an opportunity to broaden it beyond the two Governments’ involvement to include the European Union and the United States. Focusing on a peace dividend would tie it very much to this island, as opposed to a broader package necessary for the economic regeneration of Northern Ireland. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Would one solution be to refer to an economic package that includes a peace dividend? Would that square the circle and keep everyone happy? Mr Dawson: A broad economic package inclusive of a peace dividend. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Would everybody agree to that? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Can we formally agree the terms of reference for the subgroup on economic challenges? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The next item is the subgroup on the devolution of criminal justice and policing. Mr Kennedy: Pending a decision to be made by the DUP arising out of their subsequent meetings, there seems to be little point in agreeing terms of reference for the other two subgroups. It is difficult to see how any of the subgroups could achieve meaningful work without the involvement of all political parties. Dr Farren: But we are setting up the subgroups now. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The subgroups are there. Dr Farren: Yes; that is what I meant. The subgroups must have terms of reference if they are to meet. That is what we are doing. Mr Kennedy: As of today, there is no indication that all parties will participate in the subgroups. Dr Farren: That is true. Mr Kennedy: Therefore we will be establishing something that may never meet. Mr McFarland: Chairman, we are getting confused again. The subgroup on economic challenges was set up on the recommendation of the Assembly, in which we are all taking part. Is that correct? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. Mr McFarland: The other two groups are subgroups of this Committee. We need to remind ourselves that the duties of this Committee are to scope or identify issues relating to the restoration of devolution. We are not here to negotiate how many Departments there should be — that is not what this Committee is here to do. We are moving into negotiating about policing and justice. There is a consequence in relation to that, as you well know. If a policing Department and a justice Department were formed, two of the existing Departments would need to be downscaled. A whole raft of issues opens when we debate those matters. This is not scoping, is it? If it is not within the remit of this Committee to identify and recommend for consideration appropriate models for policing and justice, it is certainly not within the remit of a subgroup. The Chairman (Mr Wells): You could change the terms of reference. Mr McFarland: I am wondering if there is any point. If, for example, the DUP decides to take part, it will wish to change these things. If it does not wish to take part, then the rest of us may wish to have entirely different terms of reference for discussing these issues. Dr McCrea said he wants to include organised crime and terrorism — and the Secretary of State has now agreed that they can be included — so where does all that fit into these terms of reference? Until we are sure about who is taking part in this exercise, there is little point in having terms of reference for subgroups. The subgroup on the economic challenges is different. Everyone has agreed to take part; we know what it is for; we know where it has come from; we know what its remit is; and we are able to agree its terms of reference. This one and, indeed, the one on identifying issues of concern regarding the institutions and considering what changes are required are rather more difficult. Then we are into the core of negotiations between the parties on the re-establishment of the institutions. That is not what this Committee is supposed to be doing. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr McFarland, are you proposing that we take no decision on the terms of reference until we know where the DUP stands? Mr McFarland: I do not believe that we can. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are you proposing that? Mr McFarland: My colleague Mr Kennedy has already proposed that. The Chairman (Mr Wells): So we have a proposal. Dr Farren, are you speaking to that? Dr Farren: Yes, I certainly am. It seems to me that Alan, with due respect to what he is saying, is effectively attempting to negate the process in which we are engaged at the moment. The subgroups are to be established. In so far as we can, we should try to establish some or all of the terms of reference for them. It may be that we fail to get consensus on the terms of reference, but the subgroups exist, and they should start to meet. If the Secretary of State sees a gap in the terms of reference, I am sure that he will move to fill it by direction. We should accept that. Otherwise we will prolong an unnecessary debate at this point. Mr Murphy: This is the Preparation for Government Committee, and we have talked since the first day about setting up various subgroups to get down to work. Alan made the point about mining into the issues that we have already identified, so I am at a loss to understand why, because one happened to be subject to a vote in the Assembly, the others should not be set up. Preparation for Government is going to have to deal with the devolution of policing and justice powers, and with outstanding matters concerning the institutions. Those are necessary things that we have to deal with and resolve. If the UUP’s position is now the same as that of the DUP’s, if it is not here to negotiate, I do not see any point in setting up any of the subgroups. If we are just going to talk about an economic package and leave all the other stuff, it will not in itself prepare us for the restoration of Government. It is a very necessary part of that, but so are policing and justice, and the institutions. Mr McFarland: Is Conor saying that his party now supports policing here and that he therefore wishes to get into the details of how he is going to make the policing institutions work? If that is what he is saying, we will be happy enough to engage in that. There is no point in sitting and discussing policing and justice matters with Sinn Féin, which does not recognize the police and does not have anything to do with the police, while it still refuses to accept the police. This is barking world. Mr Murphy: I want to make it clear that we had discussions with the Ulster Unionist Party and other parties about the devolution of policing and justice matters several years ago. Mr McFarland: Absolutely. And without prejudice. Mr Murphy: Yes. And we can discuss them again without prejudice. There are issues that need to be resolved, and we are happy to get down to them. If the Ulster Unionist Party wants to start putting preconditions to matters that we need to resolve, then it is leading us off course. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We are drifting into issues that really should have been covered previously. I am going to bring this to a crunch after Mr McNarry and Mr Dawson, who has not had a chance to speak at all. 2.15 pm Mr McNarry: I want to go back to the letter of 11 July addressed to you and to Mr Molloy, which was copied to members, and to the direction letter of the same date, which was determined by the Secretary of State. Point 5 in the direction reads: “A subgroup may meet whether or not all party representatives are present”. That is a direction in the sense that it is headed: “Direction determined by the Secretary of State”. The letter of the same date was perhaps by a different typist. Your question was whether the Secretary of State would be content for subgroups to meet if one or more parties chose not to attend. Mr Hain replied that he was content for the subgroups nevertheless to meet, and for substitutes to attend. Are we now in the realms of content and direction? Which do we go by? The Chairman (Mr Wells): The direction or determination is overriding. It is like a Government Order — there is an explanatory memorandum at the start and the actual legislation follows. Mr McNarry: That is what we established at the start of the meeting. I wanted to check that we had not drifted. We are under direction to do this; no consensus is required to establish the other two subgroups. Does that mean that irrespective of whether there is consensus, these two subgroups can be established — even if a party does not wish to appear? Mr Farren proposed earlier that we move to appoint these subgroups. They need terms of reference from this Committee by consensus. Do we do that at the same time, or does that follow after? The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have already agreed the terms of reference for the subgroup on economic challenges. Mr McNarry: That is an easier one. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There is no direction as to when this happens, so if members wished to wait until the DUP had sought clarification from the Secretary of State, we could do that. Mr McFarland: That is what Mr Kennedy proposed some time back. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That proposal is still on the Floor, as it were. Our difficulty is in the timing and the sheer logistics of trying to — Mr McNarry: I understand that a timetable has been laid out; but, without labouring the point, what do have we to discuss? The direction is that two subgroups shall be formed. What do we need to discuss? The Secretary of State does not mind who participates. If a party chooses not to participate, he thinks that that is fair enough. However, he has not advised what should happen if more than one party does not participate. Mr McFarland: The subgroups cannot operate without terms of reference agreed by this Committee. We return again to the fact that if the Committee cannot agree terms of reference, there is nothing for the subgroups to do. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The terms of reference could be simply to report back to the Committee and let it, by majority decision, decide what it is going to do. Mr Dawson has been waiting for a very long time. Mr Dawson: Mr McFarland spoke about the function of the subgroups, which would be to scope and identify issues. It was never intended that they be negotiating subgroups. Those are the issues on which we need clarification from the Secretary of State. Until we receive that clarification, we cannot give consensus for the subgroups. The DUP had previously agreed the need for a subgroup on economic challenges, so it was able to agree those terms of reference today, but it cannot agree the terms of reference for the other two subgroups. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is very clear. Mr Kennedy has a proposal on the table. Mr Kennedy: Let me give some explanatory commentary on that. The UUP would be happy for the establishment of subgroups that would mine the relevant issues. It is clear, however, that the DUP has reserved its position on the subgroup on devolution of criminal justice and policing and the subgroup to consider changes to the institutions set up under the Belfast Agreement. Therefore, we see no merit in establishing subgroups, even though I accept that, by determination, they already exist. However, in the current situation, we see nothing worthwhile in creating terms of reference for the other two subgroups. Therefore, we are not prepared to give our consensus to establish the terms of reference. Dr Farren: I have a look of exasperation on my face. Perhaps that is not surprising. Almost two hours ago, I made a similar proposal, which was voted down. In the light of all that has transpired since, I no longer support that proposal. The SDLP accepted the establishment of the three subgroups under the direction of the Secretary of State. The SDLP agreed to the terms of reference for the first subgroup. It is obvious that the terms of reference for the second and third subgroups will not be agreed. That should not prevent their existence. I imagine that the Secretary of State will direct the terms of reference for them. If parties chose not to attend those subgroups because they do not like their terms of reference, we will face that situation and we will have to deal with it. If we accept that we will not agree the terms of reference for the second and third subgroups, we could wrap up this business very quickly, report the lack of agreement to the Secretary of State and await the subgroups being given a date, time and place to meet. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Can I put Mr Kennedy’s proposal to the Committee? As I understand it, the proposal is that until the DUP reports back from its meeting with the Secretary of State, the Chairmen do not call the first meetings of the subgroup to consider changes to the institutions set up under the Belfast Agreement and the subgroup on the devolution of criminal justice and policing. Mrs D Dodds: I will clarify. I do not want a convoluted argument. The Committee exists whether the DUP likes it or not, but the DUP will not agree to the terms of reference for the subgroups, which have to be established by consensus. That is the DUP’s position. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There is no consensus for Mr Kennedy’s proposal. Dr Farren has made it clear that the SDLP finds it unacceptable. It would seem that we are not going to reach consensus on the terms of reference for the second and third subgroups. Mrs Dodds has made that clear. Therefore, although we have established the format for the subgroup to consider economic challenges facing Northern Ireland, it would appear that we will not be able to nominate members to, or make arrangements for, the second and third subgroups. Does anyone dispute that assessment? Are there any other proposals for the second and third subgroups? Mr Kennedy: Obviously, it is important that the situation be reviewed at the earliest possible date. That means that we would set a date for this Committee to consider the issues and to see whether any progress has been made that would allow the proper establishment of the subgroups, with full terms of reference, that could be supported on a cross-party basis. Mr McFarland: Do we have any indication from the DUP on when its meeting might take place and when it might, therefore, be in the position to report back at a meeting of this Committee? Mrs D Dodds: The meeting will not be too far off because Westminster goes into recess soon, and, therefore, the holiday period starts. I presume that — Mr McFarland: Would next Monday be too soon? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Fixing a date for the next meeting comes towards the end of the agenda, but next Monday is a possibility. Mr Dawson: A date for our meeting is in the hands of the Secretary of State and depends on his diary. There is no firm indication of a date yet. Mr McNarry: Can it be relayed to the Secretary of State that a date for a meeting with the DUP is important, bearing in mind the timetable, staffing issues, reports, etc? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is everyone happy with that suggestion? The Secretary of State is aware of the situation and is keen to clarify it. Mr Kennedy: Deputy Speaker, have you, or the other Deputy Speaker, an insight as to whether the Secretary of State is inclined to issue a direction on the other two subgroups? The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am happy for Mr Molloy to come in on that. In our meeting with the Secretary of State, we relayed the DUP’s concerns about procedures. He indicated that he was keen to meet the DUP to discuss those concerns. However, given that the meeting was on 11 July 2006 and people were tied up for the next few days, there were practical difficulties. The Secretary of State made it clear that should other obstacles emerge, he reserves the right to issue further directions; this is the third set of directions that he has determined. We can discuss procedures as much as we like, but at the end of the day, the Secretary of State can step in at any stage and tell us how it will be, and that is that. Mr Kennedy: The UUP’s view is that it would not be particularly wise, or helpful, for the Secretary of State to issue fresh directions on those two subgroups. Given that we have agreed that the quorum be seven, the absence of two political parties would mean that the subgroups could not function. Dr Farren: That sounds like a threat. Mr Kennedy: No, it is not a threat; it is a simple statement of fact. Mr Murphy: The same applies to the subgroup on economic challenges. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is clear that we cannot move forward on the other two subgroups, but we can move on nominations for the economic challenges subgroup. If nominations are not received today, they must be with the Committee Clerks by close of play tomorrow. Can everyone meet that deadline? We need one party representative from around the table and presumably each party’s economic development spokesperson. Dr McDonnell: Chairman, are you proposing that I am my party’s economic development spokesperson? [Laughter.] Earlier, I took that as an indication of support. Mr McFarland: Do you want nominations now? The Chairman (Mr Wells): If you have them, yes. Mr McFarland: Mr McNarry will be the UUP member from this Committee, and Dr Esmond Birnie will be the second member. Mr Roy Beggs will be first reserve. Mr Ford: Sean Neeson and I will be the Alliance Party representatives. Dr Farren: Alasdair McDonnell and Margaret Ritchie will represent the SDLP. Mr Murphy: Michelle Gildernew and Mitchel McLaughlin will represent Sinn Féin. Barry McElduff will be the reserve. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Does the SDLP have a reserve? Dr McDonnell: We will find one. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Does the DUP have nominations? Mrs D Dodds: We will nominate by close of play tomorrow. Dr McDonnell: John Dallat will be the SDLP reserve. The Chairperson (Mr Wells): Apart from the DUP, that is a full complement. Cathie White, an experienced Clerk to the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee for many years, will clerk that subgroup. We have more work to do. We may park the issue of the two subgroups for today. We will not get any further on that issue. We must also decide on the future work of this Committee, as opposed to that of the subgroups. Will we continue to meet over the summer? What issues will we consider? We could leave it to the subgroups to continue the work, and we could meet less often. Mr Murphy: We certainly need one more meeting to find out what happens with the other two subgroups. We can then take it from there. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Members will recall that the Secretary of State, in his letter of 3 July 2006, asked us to: “take account of the issues and timeframe” as set out in the work plan from the two Governments. We were also asked to continue our work to identify issues that need to be addressed and to prepare a programme of work that would enable the Assembly to address those matters. Those are to be agreed on and announced by the end of August. 2.30 pm We may feel that we can fulfil those tasks by setting up the subgroups and letting them deal with the issues, or we may feel that other issues should be addressed and that we should continue to meet. Mr McFarland: Can I suggest that we put this subject off until the next meeting? The success or failure of the subgroups will dictate directly what we do. We would be in a better position to decide whether this Committee needs to meet if we knew the DUP’s position on subgroups. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is there consensus that we put the decision off until next Monday? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Would it suit members if the Committee met next Monday at 12.00 noon? Mrs D Dodds: I cannot attend next Monday at 12.00 noon. Could the time be changed to 10.00 am? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Does 10.00 am next Monday suit? Mr Kennedy: Thankfully, I am not available at all. Mr McFarland: Mr Kennedy has had the sense to go on holiday. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will agree to meet at 10.00 am next Monday. We wrote to the Clerk regarding the powers of the Chair, asking whether the powers of the Speaker in plenary extend to the Chairman of this Committee. It was on the agenda for the previous week but we did not get time to deal with it. Mr Moir’s letter is not specific. Does anyone have any comments to make on the Clerk’s ruling? Mr Kennedy: If it is written in Hansard that I am on holiday, every burglar in the country will — [Laughter.] Can you expunge that from the record? [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Wells): The powers of the Chairman were mentioned a long time ago. Do members have any comments to make on that? In the absence of anything dramatic happening, we will meet at 10.00 am next Monday. Adjourned at 2.33 pm. |