Committee on the Monday 24 July 2006 Members in attendance for all or part of proceedings: The Committee met at 10.06 am. (The Chairman (Mr Molloy) in the Chair.) The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The minutes of the meeting of 17 July are attached to the papers. The only point that I would make is that the last paragraph of the minutes states that the next meeting will take place on 17 July. That date should be changed to “24 July”. Does anyone have any other points to raise about the minutes? Are they agreed? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): On the subgroups on changes to the institutions and devolution of criminal justice and policing, I ask members to note that the title of the second subgroup has changed to “subgroup on devolution of policing and justice”, as was the term used in the Secretary of State’s letter. Are we in a position to proceed? Lord Morrow: What was that subgroup’s title before this massive change? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): It was to be the subgroup on devolution of criminal justice and policing. It is now to be called the subgroup on devolution of policing and justice. Can we proceed to set up those two subgroups at this stage? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We move now to the issues raised in the letter from the Secretary of State to the Chairpersons, and to the terms of reference for each subgroup. Can we have nominations for the subgroup on changes to the institutions? Dr Farren: I nominate P J Bradley and myself. Mr Ford: I nominate Kieran McCarthy and myself. Mr Murphy: I nominate John O’Dowd and myself. Mr McNarry: When is the cut-off time for nominating? By what day do you need to know? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): That is up to this Committee. Mr McNarry: A couple of days were allowed for nominations to be made to the previous subgroup. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Is close of play tomorrow OK? Mr McNarry: That is fine. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Maurice, I know that the DUP has had communication with the Secretary of State. When can we expect a reply from your party on its position? Lord Morrow: I understood that we had replied at the previous meeting. Did Dr McCrea not state our position? I am sorry, but I was not there. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Yes, he did, but your party had communication with the Secretary of State in between. The DUP said that it was meeting with the Secretary of State to discuss the voting procedures and other issues. I am just seeking clarification as to whether there has been any change in the party’s position. Lord Morrow: No, there has not been. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I invite members to look at the terms of reference for the subgroup on devolution of policing and justice and to agree them. We shall now consider the terms of reference to see whether we can agree them. Dr Farren: Chairman, before we leave the issue, is it correct that four of the five parties will have nominated by the close of play tomorrow? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Yes. Dr Farren: I understand that the DUP will not nominate. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): That is correct. Dr Farren: I just wanted to know where we stand. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Members will have copies of the terms of reference for the institutions subgroup. The terms of reference list several issues, in no order of preference, that came up in proposals and discussions on the institutions. That list can be added to if members have other issues that they wish to discuss, but what we have should suffice to start off with. Mr Ford: The list does not cover all the institutions. For example, there is no mention of the inter-parliamentary body between the Oireachtas and the Assembly. However, the list is comprehensive enough to include that body somewhere in the discussions. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are we agreed on the terms of reference? Mr Murphy: Is it a matter for the subgroup to add to the list if it wishes? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Yes. Members indicated assent. Dr Farren: Chairman, is it in order to ask the DUP why it declines to participate in the subgroup? Lord Morrow: Which one? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The one to consider changes to the institutions. Lord Morrow: I thought that Mr McCrea made it clear that the only subgroup that had been agreed to through the Assembly was the working group on economic challenges; the other two subgroups have not been agreed through the Assembly. Dr Farren: We left last week’s meeting on the understanding that the DUP was to seek clarification from the Secretary of State. Despite that view being expressed, the door was not closed on the issue, as it were. Are we to understand that now the reason for the DUP’s not nominating to the institutions subgroup is that that subgroup did not come through the Assembly? Are the issues to be discussed in the subgroup of no concern to the DUP? Lord Morrow: Whatever the subgroups agree must come back to the Committee to be agreed. This Committee is a catch-all. Therefore although we have decided not to nominate to the subgroups, we recognise that the purpose of the Preparation for Government Committee is to scope the issues. That is what the Secretary of State told us at the start, and that is what we are sticking to. Dr Farren: Of course that is correct. However, in order to scope the issues in sufficient depth so that we all understand and appreciate them, it is necessary to form the subgroups. The DUP is declining to participate in further elaboration and scoping of the issues in a way that would help the rest of us to understand its position. It is particularly interesting that the DUP, in any comments that it made on the review of the institutions, made great play of those issues. In fact, since the DUP insisted that many issues relating to the operation of the institutions were of concern to it, I would have thought that it should be to the DUP’s advantage — and to the advantage of the rest of us — to hear its elaboration and full scoping of the issues, as that might help us to move forward. It is a matter of regret that the DUP has declined to do so. The DUP is abdicating a clear responsibility, as far as the terms of reference of this Committee are concerned, to help the rest of us to understand its position. Since the DUP is not participating in helping the rest of us to understand its position on those issues, I am sceptical of the views that it expresses. 10.15 am Lord Morrow: Will I have to respond to every view expressed around this table? Our position is clear. No one should be under any misapprehension about where we stand on the return of devolution. The dogs in the street know the issues that are holding up the return of devolution. We are not being allowed to have debates in the Assembly because Sinn Féin has said that it will not take part in them, and the Secretary of State obviously takes that line. Therefore what is the point of scoping the issues further? This Committee is designed to scope all the issues. We understood that that had been done and we thought that we had made that clear to everyone around this table, but it seems that we have not. Dr Farren: Would the DUP be happy for this Committee to turn itself into a subgroup and continue its work on focusing on institutional and policing issues in a way that would enable us to understand the DUP’s approach? Over the next few weeks we would focus sequentially on those two issues in this Committee. The DUP would have the opportunity to focus on the issues here since it will not participate in subgroups. Lord Morrow: The DUP has no problem with this Committee. We understood that the role of the Preparation for Government Committee was to identify and scope the issues. Now we are being told that this Committee needs subgroups to identify the issues, and no doubt in a couple of weeks’ time we will be told that those subgroups will need subgroups to identify the issues. We are rolling this out into an array of subgroups that will not deliver anything. This Committee was quite capable of identifying and scoping the issues no matter what they were. We have been sitting on this Committee — even though it has been difficult over the holiday period to get Members to sit on it due to holiday arrangements. However, we have been able to muster people for every meeting. We see no need for the subgroups on the two issues that are being identified this morning. The economic working group is different as it was agreed following debate in the Assembly. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Seán, are you making a proposal? Dr Farren: At the moment the matter is up for discussion. Either these issues are important and need further elaboration and discussion or they are not — and if there is no consensus that there is anything to be discussed then I must accept that. However, it is very curious that the DUP, which went to considerable lengths to express concerns about the operation of the institutions, is declining to avail of the opportunity to let the rest of us — who would have to operate those institutions together with the DUP — hear its position. Although I may not agree with the positions that the DUP was putting forward, I am anxious to hear them. My party had an exchange with the DUP at Leeds Castle to which that party did not respond in any detail. Given that experience, I am anxious that we know its response to our proposals. We have never gone through the issues in any detail at our meetings here. Even if the DUP is frightened of negotiating and wishes to remain at the level of scoping, surely it should be more than anxious to let the rest of us hear what it has to say. We are not going to bend over simply to accommodate the DUP, but I am making a suggestion that might be discussed here for a few minutes before it turns into any kind of proposal, because that may not be what we should do. My suggestion is that this Committee should focus on the two issues on which the DUP will not participate in subgroups. Members can be represented by one, two, or all of their delegates as they choose, and they can send whomever they like — it is not necessary to have the same faces around the table on those issues. Effectively, this Committee could become the subgroups. It is a device to get around our difficulty. Perhaps, of course, we should proceed without listening to the DUP. Lord Morrow: You have done that for years. Dr Farren: Now that you are being given the opportunity, I cannot imagine that you want to scorn it. Mr Ford: I am at a loss to know quite where we are. Last week the DUP conceded the establishment of the subgroup on economic challenges as a subgroup of this Committee, despite previously maintaining that it should be set up by the Assembly and the Business Committee. I accept that as a gesture on their part towards the rest of us to enable something to get under way. Maurice Morrow now seems to be saying that there is some concern about further scoping the issues, but we do not agree on the mechanism for that. Interesting though they were, the five sets of inquisitions, when proposals were teased out over a few days, did not actually constitute dealing in full detail with every outstanding issue. There is much “mining down further” — in Alan McFarland’s elegant phrase — to be done. The view from the DUP this morning is that that is so, but the structures to do it have not been agreed. Can the DUP confirm that it is content that there is further scoping out in detail to be done on some issues, and that it is simply a matter of the mechanism by which we do it? Or does the DUP believe that the job is now completely finished? Lord Morrow: I repeat — perhaps I did not make it clear — that my understanding was that this Committee was to identify and scope the issues. Is that the Alliance Party’s understanding? Mr Ford: That was certainly our understanding; however, as I thought I had made clear a few moments ago, it was not our understanding that the process had been clarified. Scoping the issues is more than publishing a list that says: “Party A believes items 1 to 27”, and: “Party B believes items 28 to whatever”. It is a matter of establishing in greater measure, through discussion, any overlaps and differences between parties that may not be immediately apparent. That is a valid job to continue, either in this Committee or in subgroups. Lord Morrow: The DUP has never seen this as a negotiating committee. Mr Ford: No, and, conscious of your concerns, I did not suggest that it was. I suggested that it was a committee for further elaboration of where parties stood. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Referring to what Seán said, there is no reason why the possible ongoing work of this Committee should not deal with some of the issues that are not being discussed in subgroups. Mr Murphy: That reinforces the DUP’s position all along with regard to this Committee, which has been that it is a tactical engagement with no serious intention to work to prepare for Government here but to secure plenary debates in the Assembly. Ironically, the DUP, in many of its submissions and interventions, accused the rest of us of running away from issues, particularly policing and justice. Now it has a chance to join a subgroup to deal with those issues. The DUP asked that it might raise all sorts of issues, and that was granted. Yet it still does not want to get down to work. The DUP accused the rest of us of not facing up to the issues; now it spurns a chance to get down to them. That reinforces the view that we have had throughout our engagement with this Committee: the DUP’s approach has been merely tactical; it goes through the motions without doing any real business. I have sympathy with Seán’s frustration, and I would be prepared to explore other ways of doing business. The difficulty is that we have a direction from the Secretary of State to set up two subgroups to do the work. We would have to look at ways of trying to get around that. We can dance around the issue to try to find a more amenable way to get the DUP to do business. However, since coming onto this Committee the DUP representatives have shown themselves consistently unwilling to get down to any serious engagement with the rest of us. They are not prepared to negotiate on any institutional issues; neither are they prepared to negotiate on any of the issues in order to prepare for the devolution of policing and justice. They are consistent in refusing to engage in the subgroups. Mr McNarry: Chairman, I hope that we are not going to get into another two-hour wrangle about business that we have covered repeatedly. The way that we work here is clear: there is consensus or there is not. There seems to be a proposal from Seán Farren, which may or may not be a way ahead. I am uncomfortable with the DUP position on the Committee, because we operate on consensus. If Seán has a proposal, we need to know whether there is consensus for it. We began the proceedings by establishing consensus to set up two subgroups, and there was no disagreement. Trouble arose only when we moved to nominations. What Maurice Morrow has reported is no surprise, as the signals given by William McCrea were clear. Therefore it should be no surprise that my party has discussed the potential of the DUP position — we picked up those clear signals. William McCrea also clearly said that the DUP would abide by the rules, yet it does not do to criticise what you have been a part of. We do not have control of this Committee; that is our weakness. When we encounter a problem, we run like children to the Secretary of State, who issues letters that are contrary to previous letters, and we do not know what the hell we are working to. We have bowed to Sinn Féin on debates — no debates because Sinn Féin does not want them — a position that has been facilitated by the Secretary of State. We now have an economic subgroup, which, I must say on behalf of those of us who attended it, worked very well. It seemed to have a good programme; it had agreed a very full agenda; and the participation in it seemed of the highest quality. What do we do now? We allow the Secretary of State to tinker and to take control away from us, while we sit here like plebs. We have to get a grip on that, because we are now tinkering with it. I understand and I sympathise with Seán’s proposal, because the tinkering is intended to keep us together so that we do not go into subgroups from which one party is absent. As Maurice said, quite rightly, a subgroup would report to this Committee; and then this Committee — after some of the people on it had changed their hats — would decide whether or not it would adopt the report. The essential thing, unless I am wrong, was that we agreed that all reports on the three issues would be debated in the Assembly. I challenged Conor Murphy last time, and he gave me as good an answer as he could — by quoting Martin McGuinness. Hansard will have recorded my reaction to that. 10.30 am Could we perhaps get to the point? Assurances were given, which I took in good faith, that the reports would be debated in the Assembly. The objective of this Committee to ensure that reports are completed remains. The problem is which mechanism is used to complete those reports. To facilitate colleagues in the DUP, as we facilitated colleagues in Sinn Féin in relation to participating in Assembly debates, is there something within Seán Farren’s proposals that would retain those issues within this Committee or a subgroup of its membership? I am a bit concerned about the loose talk about having a subgroup with different faces. That changes the entire outlook of this Committee. There are substitutes in this Committee today, but those members came as substitutes. We should not send members to be surrogate PFG Committee members. That must be clarified. If, in the interests of collectivity and co-operation, there is a proposal to allow this Committee to deal with the two outstanding issues, which the DUP is prepared to accept and which we all accept, is there consensus to explore that? I appreciate Conor Murphy’s words that he would be prepared to explore that. It was very interesting and helpful, and I appreciate it. Could that exploration be tied to Seán’s proposal? If there is no consensus, we go back to what the Secretary of State said, which was: “I am directing; I am the boss; I am the overseer; and I am the colonial custodian of Northern Ireland at the moment”. Ha ha, big deal. The Secretary of State also introduced new rules to help some people and offend others. One new rule was that consensus was unnecessary in a subgroup. Would that rule apply to a subgroup of this Committee dealing with those issues? He also said that there did not need to be consensus and that a majority vote would do. Those issues need to be clarified, Chairman. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): A subgroup of this Committee is what we were directed to set up. Whatever term people wish to use, they are all subgroups of this Committee. Mrs D Dodds: I have a number of points; I will ask Seán for clarification on his point in a moment. First, this party never agreed with the consensus to set up subgroups last week. The establishment of subgroups was directed by the Secretary of State. That is apparent from his letter, which is included in the papers for today’s meeting. The Secretary of State directed us to do that, whether or not I like subgroups. Maurice Morrow has made our party’s position clear; we are not running away from any of the issues. We have sat on this Committee for a number of weeks; we have scoped issues and prepared a lengthy report for the Committee, which seems to have disappeared into the ether. There is much work to be done, which involves a wide range of issues, but the subgroups’ remits are narrow. Other issues, such as criminality and paramilitary activity — which parties in this room want to run away from — are exceptionally important to the DUP and must be dealt with extensively. I would like Seán Farren to clarify his point; if he would like this Committee to deal with the issues assigned to the subgroups, does he agree that the Committee should deal with all the issues that have been scoped to date, not just the couple of issues that have been identified in the Secretary of State’s directives? Dr Farren: The SDLP is not afraid to address the issues on which you focused — paramilitarism and criminality. The Secretary of State explicitly included those issues on the agenda for the subgroup on policing and justice, so it will deal with those concerns of the DUP. There is no question of them, or any other issues, being avoided. If parties wish to address any other issues, there is absolutely no reason why, under the broad umbrella of preparing for Government, they should not be on the agenda of this Committee or one of its subgroups. I raised the possibility of the PFG Committee addressing the issues earmarked for the two remaining subgroups to ensure that the DUP would be able to participate, given its refusal to nominate to those subgroups — its reasons are beyond me; nonetheless, the party seems to have adopted that position and is not budging from it. Notwithstanding his directions, if the Secretary of State heard that this Committee was anxious to continue discussion on those issues, I would not imagine that he would insist that they be dealt with by the subgroups simply because he directed that they should be established. Let us remember, directions were only issued because this Committee has been unable to reach any consensus. The Secretary of State took it upon himself to provide a way for us to continue to operate. I recognise that my suggestion is really a contrivance, but sometimes contrivances are necessary in politics to hide parties’ shame or to protect them from their own intransigence, which backs them into corners. We must first establish whether there is a clear acceptance that the issues on the two subgroups’ agendas need to be scoped, discussed, explored or whatever word one wants to use — Alan McFarland uses the word “mine”. If we can agree on that, then, as David said, the mechanisms become just a way of achieving our goal and are of lesser importance than the agreement that we should continue to discuss, explore, mine, scope, identify — or whatever the suitable word. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): When we started the discussion this morning about setting up the subgroups, I asked whether there was any problem with setting them up this morning, and there was no objection. The Secretary of State’s direction may mean that we do not need consensus. Lord Morrow: Members could not object to them. He has made it clear. The Secretary of State is the boss. He will tell us what we should or should not do, and that is what he has been doing. He has determined that the Assembly cannot meet. He has said that. His words are: “ I have directed.” He is not asking for agreement. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I am just clarifying the point that Diane raised. Diane, do you want to respond? The Secretary of State is really asking whether, if this Committee were to deal with the issues, the DUP would be happy to sit on it to deal with them? Mrs D Dodds: This Committee has set itself a very large programme of work. Our statement earlier in the week said that this Committee is perfectly capable of dealing with the issues. However, that will be all of the issues — every issue that has been identified, on an issue-by-issue basis, and it will not be confined to the narrow remit of subgroups. There is no need for subgroups. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The problem I have is that we have been trying to expand, or have been accused of expanding, the remit of this Committee. Now members have been told that it has too narrow a remit. Mrs D Dodds: No. I am sorry. The remit of this Committee is very wide. It is to scope the issues. Members have already spent weeks and weeks doing that. Now you say to us that we are going to expand the Committee. I am interested to see how you want to expand the remit of the Committee. Mr O’Dowd: The wider the scope or remit of this Committee, the greater the need for subgroups to break down that work and look at it in a detailed manner and report back. However, I wish to clarify the position for the DUP. Our party is more than keen — indeed, champing at the bit — to discuss the issue of criminality and paramilitary activity. If that helps the DUP’s deliberations, we are more than happy to do that. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): That could be done in the Subgroup on Devolution of Criminal Justice and Policing. Mr McFarland: I apologise for being late this morning. We had a meeting with the Secretary of State at 9.15 am, which overran. Mr Kennedy sends his apologies. Forgive me if I cover ground already covered. This Committee was tasked with identifying the issues. It has perhaps identified most of them, but we do not know. It was decided that we should break into three subgroups to try to find out whether, within those areas, there are other issues that have not yet been identified; and to expand those areas and find out whether we have identified all the issues that are important. As Lord Morrow said while I was coming in, this is not a negotiating Committee. That is absolutely clear. Negotiation will take place elsewhere. We still have work to do on identifying issues. There are lots of sub-parts of these issues that we have not yet got round to examining, because we have been operating at a more macro level. Rightly or wrongly, the Secretary of State has said that we should have three subgroups. It is in the middle of summer. Mr Kennedy, for example, has now left for a fortnight’s holiday. I have no doubt that colleagues will be back and forward over the summer. We cannot operate this Committee and the subgroups at full pace, because the Secretary of State has decreed that each member is to sit on a subgroup. Therefore it is not possible, with holidays and everything else, to run these two organisations side by side. There is a logic in moving it down to a more micro level to examine what is going on within those issues. We had a difficulty with the phrasing of the terms of reference, because it looked as though we were involved in dealing only with the Government’s paper on policing. We have enormous problems with that. The five options are not the only options; there are many others, but that is a matter for negotiation. 10.45 am We identified many sub-areas within the issue of policing and justice. When criminality and paramilitary activity were not being discussed in that subgroup, William McCrea said that the DUP wanted those issues on the agenda. That makes a lot of sense, because there are many areas within criminality that we need to explore in a subgroup — whether organised crime is carried out by individuals, who sanctions such activities, and other questions. There is work to be done. However, I am still confused about whether the DUP is refusing to take part in the subgroups as a matter of principle — no matter how useful the work might be or how important it is to identify and scope the detail of these issues. Why? It is not ideal that the Secretary of State has ended up directing the subgroups. Is the DUP objection on principle or does it object because it does not have control, in that subgroup decisions are not based on unanimity? No other system operates on the consensus basis of this Committee, and if we are ever to succeed as an Assembly or a Government, we must realise that. In the Assembly last week, Peter Robinson said that parties operating outside unanimity would take hits that they do not like on certain matters, but that is the way it is. That seems sensible. If we approach the issues in an adult and sensible fashion through subgroups, I cannot see why we cannot do some more good work in identifying the issues — not negotiating — that can be brought before the Assembly for debate. We must keep reminding ourselves why we are here: it is so that the DUP can have an enormous four or five days of debate in the autumn. Lord Morrow: Do you not want a debate also, Alan? Mr McFarland: I absolutely do; but if there are no subgroups, there will be no debate. The problem is that we are trying to get debates. We need debates in the Assembly, with everybody present, so that the public can see that we are operating properly. If the subgroups do not identify detailed areas of discussion, the Secretary of State will have problems producing debates. That will be unfortunate. Mrs Long: Further to what David Ford asked earlier, the DUP seems to agree that the scoping exercise, which is the job of this Committee, is incomplete, in that there is still further work to be done. The question is how we go about doing that. I am unclear whether the DUP’s objection is to the idea of subgroups. I understood that its fundamental objection was that subgroups could end up negotiating. If the subgroups are set up with the same remit as this Committee — to further scope the issues — I do not see how that is any different from our discussing matters in this Committee or in a subgroup. That is why I am slightly confused by the DUP’s current position. It has no fundamental principled objection to subgroups, as such — by the DUP’s own admission, the Subgroup on Economic Challenges is working well. The issue seems to be where subgroups blur into negotiation. That is what I am asking. If the remit of subgroups is to further scope the issues, is it not sensible to proceed so that the subgroups can report to this Committee, where reports would be agreed by unanimity, if that is part of the objection? Diane mentioned the issues that would not be dealt with under the remits of the subgroups. I would have thought that any outstanding issues from the subgroups would be better dealt with through this Committee. That way, no issues would be left outstanding. It would simply be a case of the subgroups further scoping those issues that fit comfortably into their remits, while those issues not within the remits of the subgroups remain with this Committee. That would be a way of addressing all the issues. Clearly, we all agree that they have not all been scoped in any depth. Lord Morrow: There are a couple of points that Mrs Long has got right, and others on which she is wrong. She said that, by our admission, the Subgroup on Economic Challenges was working well. I never mentioned that subgroup in our deliberations, and neither did Diane Dodds. I do not know whether it is working well. In relation to the subgroups that have been born of this Committee, I said that there would no doubt be subgroups out of subgroups. How many subgroups do we need? Secondly, you said that we did not object to the subgroups. I am sure that you have read the correspondence, so you will know that the Secretary of State directed the subgroups to meet. Therefore, there was no need to object or to agree; he is the king of the castle. The DUP did not initiate this debate — others sitting around this table did that. We simply said that we would not nominate members to two of the subgroups. Where is the ambiguity in that? Mrs Long: That is the point. The ambiguity lies in the fact that the DUP will not nominate members to sit on two of the three subgroups. It is willing to nominate members to sit on one of the subgroups, but not the other two. Lord Morrow: Yes, because we made it clear — Mrs Long: And — Lord Morrow: If I can interrupt you — The Chairman (Mr Molloy): One at a time. Mrs Long: I would like to finish my point. That is where the ambiguity lies. Lord Morrow: She will not listen. Mrs Long: It seems that the issue is not with the subgroups; rather it concerns what they will be dealing with. Lord Morrow: That is not what I said. I said that the economic subgroup was born out of the Assembly debate. Mr Ford: It is a direction from the Secretary of State. Lord Morrow: It was born out of the Assembly debate; the Assembly requested it, and the Secretary of State acceded to that request. Mrs Long: Not as a subgroup of this Committee. Mr McFarland: I am confused as to why Maurice is unhappy with the subgroups. I could understand his objections if the subgroups had powers to negotiate, in the same way as I could understand objections to this Committee having those powers. However, if the subgroups will not be negotiating, but rather scoping and identifying issues in finer detail, what is the difficulty with them? Is it because they will operate a non-consensual voting system or because the terms of reference are not right? I am trying to understand why the DUP is saying that it will not sit on the subgroups. Lord Morrow: We believe that the PFG Committee could adequately deal with the issues. Mr McFarland: Chairman, the problem is that the PFG Committee will not meet because, as directed by the Secretary of State, its work areas have been divided among the three subgroups. It will be impossible for members of this Committee to sit here and on the subgroups. The subgroups will discuss the work areas in more detail, and party experts on those matters will sit on the subgroups. The Secretary of State is expecting the subgroups’ work to be fed back to this Committee so that it can decide on matters for debate in September. Without the work of those subgroups, how does Maurice think that those debates can be arranged? Is he not concerned about whether we can arrange five debates in the autumn? Lord Morrow: Sinn Féin is already on record as saying that it will determine whether there will be any debates. Mr McFarland: The Secretary of State has already determined that the debates will take place. Lord Morrow: You are right. The Secretary of State has said many things. Your colleague, David McNarry, said that every time we get a letter from the Secretary of State it contradicts and changes what he said in previous letters. Therefore, do not set too much store by what the Secretary of State has determined or not determined because he will change his mind at the next call. It is time that we moved on from this issue. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We are reaching that stage now. Lord Morrow: We are just going round in circles, and there is nothing around this circle. Mr McFarland: I do not understand the DUP’s objection. Lord Morrow: We will not sit on negotiating subgroups. We have made that quite clear from day one, and, Alan, you know that. Mr McFarland: They are not negotiating subgroups. Lord Morrow: That is Mr McFarland’s interpretation. One of his colleagues said in the newspaper recently that negotiations were going on in this Committee. Who is right? I understand why he looks bewildered. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): For clarification, rather than have a subgroup, the consensus was that there would be a working group, which would produce a report — a majority report or a minority report — until voting procedures are established. The subgroup on policing and justice would deal with issues such as criminality and paramilitaries. The Committee’s agenda could be expanded to include those issues further if there is agreement. The subgroups would have a clear line as to what they can deal with. If the subgroup is set up, the Secretary of State’s direction will be fulfilled. The reports will come back to the Committee — where consensus comes back into play — so the majority issue is not damaging in any way in the subgroup. A debate in the Assembly will follow the submission of the subgroup’s report. Mr McNarry: It is vital that the Committee reach a decision to get down to work. The outcome that I am looking for is that we produce reports for debate. The Secretary of State has given dates in September for debates, and I take it that we are still working towards having those debates. I presume that they will cover the reports that the Committee will have approved, or will have been part of approving, and that there will be a report on rural planning. We must find a compromise whereby those reports can be compiled through the Committee. I feel privileged to be here, but I share my party colleagues’ anxiety to know what the Committee is doing and how it is progressing with issues. There are not 108 MLAs in this room, and the only place where there will be 108 MLAs is in the Assembly, where all Members will have the right to discuss the issues and reports that the Committee discusses. This is the Committee on the Preparation for Government, yet it is extraordinary that the scoping issues so far have not included such matters as education, health and development. I have some sympathy with that view. If we are serious about preparing for Government, we should discuss the issues that we will inherit; for example, we may have ideas on how to design the future of the institutions and of policing and justice. However, there are other issues, and that is why I am glad that there is a subgroup on the economy. We have come to today’s Committee sitting on the back of news that the Government have frittered away millions on consultation. They are suffering from “consultation-itis” and cannot move without consulting the people. However, when the Government have consulted people on issues such as education, they ignore them. Would we have done that? We need to prepare for Government by establishing the background to that consultation. The levels of consultation prove to me that the Government cannot govern properly. That is lamentable, and their management of Northern Ireland is dreadful, but that is also part of preparation for Government. I know that we have timescales and that people are going on holiday, etc, and those should be facilitated, but I hope that we can deal with such issues in order to get to the wider issues in the lifetime of the Committee. Therefore, that seems to put pressure on the Committee to make decisions here and now. Do we go for a subgroup that my party may not participate in, or do we try to facilitate to keep us all together? It seems a nonsense that people may abstain – my party included — from a subgroup and yet discuss the reports of the subgroups on changes to the institutions and the devolution of criminal justice and policing — a point that has already been made. Can we either decide to move on with the subgroups without parties, or find a compromise that will keep us together on these issues? 11.00 am Dr Farren: I plead guilty to initiating this procedural debate. I understood from initial comments made by the DUP that it would not be nominating members to the two subgroups on changes to the institutions and the devolution of criminal justice and policing, although last week we were given to understand that it might be in a position to do so following consultations with, and clarification from, the Secretary of State. The DUP is not nominating to those subgroups, and, rather than have those two subgroups, I thought that we might continue to debate the issues related to those two agenda items in this format. The DUP seems anxious that these matters should be discussed, but, rather than say: “Yes, that would be a way forward”, it seems to be trying to find ways to obscure the issue, and it will not make a commitment to have the issues scoped further — to use its language — within this Committee. However, if it is saying that this Committee could do so, then there would be no need for the subgroups, whatever the directions of the Secretary of State. We would tell the Secretary of State that we have agreed to continue to discuss those issues in this format and that we do not need the other two subgroups. Will the Secretary of State say that we must have those two subgroups? Will he not be pleased that we will be discussing the matters further in this format? Mr McNarry: I said before that we should get the Secretary of State to come to this Committee and answer those questions. Dr Farren: He is unlikely to accede to that request. However, we could agree to scope those issues in this Committee. Would the DUP be happy for us to proceed without the subgroups and to scope the issues in here in this format? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We need to reach a conclusion. If Dr Farren’s proposal were put forward and we had consensus that we do not need the subgroups, we would need legal opinion and the opinion of the Secretary of State, as we would not be complying with his direction. Dr Farren: We would suspend the implementation of the direction. Is there a serious suggestion that the Secretary of State will say that we must operate those two subgroups even though we have decided to continue with those issues in this Committee? It may be that some other party will object to that procedure. I began by saying that I was thinking off the top of my head as to how we might proceed with these two issues — if they are important to the DUP in particular — and how we might overcome the problem that the DUP has with nominating. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Dr Farren, are you making that a proposal? Dr Farren: I am making a proposal in order to bring this to a head. It will test whether or not people are happy to proceed. Mr Murphy: It should be brought to a head. We are in danger of talking this to death. The DUP has not shown any willingness to deal with these matters as agenda items here, and it is unwilling to go into subgroups. David McNarry has suggested that the UUP might abstain, and that would mean that the subgroups would not be workable anyway. Alan McFarland challenged the DUP as to why it would not join the subgroups, and David McNarry said that his party might abstain anyway. It is getting ridiculous. David McNarry is out of the room now, but he has suggested several times before, and also today, that the other parties facilitated Sinn Féin in not having Assembly debates. I have to correct him: they did not facilitate us. Sinn Féin objected to every plenary session of the Assembly except for the failed attempt to elect the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. On four or five occasions, our objections were overruled, overlooked or ignored, and the Secretary of State proceeded with his plans. No one facilitated Sinn Féin in that regard. Sinn Féin has made clear its position on this Committee: it is a Preparation for Government Committee, not a preparation for debates committee. It seems that Alan thinks that the emphasis of this Committee is on facilitating a debate in September. The emphasis from our perspective is to get down to talking about some of the serious issues that need to be discussed in order to meet the deadline for restoration on 24 November. That is Sinn Féin’s purpose. If part of that work involves debating some of those matters in the Assembly, and those are genuine debates in relation to work that has been done in this Committee, we are happy to co-operate. The objective of this Committee is to do the required work. However, we have been talking for an hour, and I have seen no indication yet of any progress on the two topics. The other subgroup is up and running, and there is no indication of the other two getting under way. If the UUP abstained from participation in the subgroups, as it seemed to indicate earlier, they could not function anyway. It is time for some straight answers. Is this work going to happen or not? Frankly, we could be doing something more useful than sitting here in circular discussions every Monday. Mrs Long: The Alliance Party does not care whether the discussions take place in the Committee or a subgroup, so long as they take place and do so quickly. At present, we seem to be going round in circles and getting nowhere. If having the discussions in the Committee makes it easier for other people to participate, we are happy to have them here, and if it is easier to do it in subgroups, that is fine. The meat of the issue matters, not the structure of the discussions. We must focus on that. Following the questioning of the DUP’s position, I was surprised to hear the Ulster Unionists suggest in the last intervention that they might not participate in the subgroups. That question was asked of them earlier today, and no indication of their position was given until the end. If we are going to proceed with the subgroups, there must be a commitment from all parties to be present. We could proceed with the subgroups without the DUP — and I understand its frustration with this discussion — but that would be pointless, because all parties around the table need to make some kind of submission and be party to the discussions. The non-participation of any party would not be helpful to any of us, and that is why we are having this hour-long circular discussion. We want to see how we can do business, with the DUP and everyone else at the table contributing something, because we all believe that that is not only positive, but necessary. That is why we have been teasing this out, but there must be a commitment from all five parties that they will sit around the table and be willing to get on with the business, wherever it may take place. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): That is the key point. If the subgroup is not set up and the topics are to be debated here, it must be established whether all parties will participate. Dr Farren: I will put my proposal, in that case. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Alan wanted to speak first. Mr McFarland: Seán asked Maurice whether the DUP would take part in the discussions if they took place in this format. It would be useful to know the answer to that before we take decisions. Dr Farren: It is a rhetorical question, because they are members of this Committee. If they do not turn up — Mr McFarland: If the DUP objects to negotiating policing and justice in a subgroup, it is as likely to be neurotic about discussing it in this Committee — or perhaps not, as the case may be. I am curious to get an answer. Mr Ford: I asked that question directly in my first contribution to this discussion. If we are merely scoping further — or in your terms, mining down — is there a suitable format in which to do that? I was trying to see whether we could assist the DUP in getting engaged in that, while accepting that it would not engage in anything that it regarded as negotiations. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We need a commitment from all parties, not just the DUP, that they will be happy to discuss policing, justice and other issues in this Committee if there is not going to be a subgroup. Lord Morrow: Under what circumstances would Alan McFarland or his party not participate in subgroups? Mr McFarland: Hold on for a moment. We are back to Seán Farren’s question: if those issues were kept in this Committee and in this format, would the DUP take part? Lord Morrow: We have made it quite clear from day one that we see this as a scoping Committee. We can scope whatever issue under the sun that members wish. Mr McFarland: The subgroups scope at a micro level. The DUP disagreed with that and said that that was negotiation. Is the DUP happy to do micro-level scoping in this format? Lord Morrow: I am sure that Alan McFarland will answer my question in a moment or two. If there is further scoping of the issues within this Committee, we expect that to include all the issues that have been raised in the Committee but that we were never allowed to debate in the Assembly. Mr McFarland: So the answer is that the DUP is happy to discuss institutions and policing and justice in this Committee as part of a scoping exercise. That seems to be a yes. Lord Morrow: It is your turn to reply. Mr McFarland: Hold on; I am trying to go through the logic of this. The DUP’s objection to the subgroups was nothing to do with scoping, because what was to be discussed in the subgroups is the same as what we discussed in this format. Therefore, the objection must be to the lack of a requirement for consensus on the subgroups, because the issues and the terms of reference are the same. The difference is in the formats of this Committee and the subgroups. If the DUP is happy with that, its problem must be something other than the scoping exercise. Mrs D Dodds: I am very anxious to allow Alan McFarland to reply to Maurice Morrow’s question. Our objection is not to subgroups per se, but to the voting system in the subgroups. It is interesting to see that so many parties in this room are now content with majority rule in some cases. Mr McFarland: That is how the first Assembly operated, and the next Assembly will operate in that way. Mrs D Dodds: Before the end of June, this Committee prepared a comprehensive list of issues that had been scoped and identified as the obstacles to the return of devolution in Northern Ireland. For example, on the matter of debates, we had a report that quite easily could have gone to the Assembly for a valuable debate that would have allowed 108 Members to contribute. I entirely share Mr McNarry’s frustration at the way in which that has been handled and blocked by parties in this room and by the Secretary of State. We have a full report and a full list of issues. We cannot pick and choose those issues, which are far too narrow as defined by the remits for the two subgroups. We will not agree to those remits. Maurice Morrow asked some time ago — and I would really like to get round to Alan McFarland’s answer — on what basis the Ulster Unionists would not nominate to the two subgroups. We have already made our position quite clear. Mr McFarland: All the issues that we identified fit into one of the three subgroups. You can see that. That is why we have established subgroups. The Secretary of State wants subgroups to identify particular issues. We are trying to agree the format because, as others have said, to have one of the major parties, the DUP, not playing its part clearly does not help the work of this Committee at all. Why does the DUP not want to play its part? It is not because of the scoping exercise that the subgroups could do, because the DUP is happy to do that in this format. There must be some other reason, to do with the voting system or whatever, for its not being happy to sit on subgroups. 11.15 am Mrs D Dodds: I am sorry, I am still waiting — Dr Farren: I have a point of procedure, Chairman. The debate is moving away from the proposal. Whether one, two or three parties decide not to nominate to subgroups is not the point; it is whether we have a format in which the issues can be addressed. My proposal aims to establish whether there is consensus for such a format; that is, this Committee. That is all. After the proposal has been put, members can question each other as to whether they would participate in subgroups, were they to exist. However, my proposal would probably push the subgroups aside and render them unnecessary. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I will put your proposal to the Committee. Dr Farren: My proposal should be put, because it does not require any further debate, in my view. Mrs D Dodds: For weeks, we have openly discussed these issues and answered parties’ questions. Maurice put a question to the Ulster Unionist Party, and I would really like to hear the answer. Mr McFarland: The answer is absolutely irrelevant, because the subgroups will not function. There cannot be a situation whereby only four parties sit on a subgroup and produce a report that must come back to this Committee for consensual agreement before it goes before the Assembly. If the DUP does not sit on the subgroup, there is no subgroup. Asking silly questions about who else might sit on the subgroup and what its terms of reference might be is — Mrs D Dodds: I did not raise that issue. It was raised by a member of Mr McFarland’s party, and I am keen to know his view. Mr McFarland: But it does not matter. Lord Morrow: There is an inference that everyone else is asking silly questions and that only questions asked by Alan are intelligent. Mrs D Dodds: It is a particularly pejorative way of speaking. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Will you restate your proposal, Dr Farren? Dr Farren: I propose that this Committee continues to discuss issues other than those being discussed in the Subgroup on Economic Challenges. Whether we decide that subgroups are necessary is an aside at this point. Let me make it simple: I propose that we continue to discuss the issues identified for the other two subgroups, on institutions and policing and justice, and other matters, in this Committee. That is all. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Is there consensus? Mr Murphy: I am sceptical, given the DUP’s refusal to give a direct answer to whether it would get down to business in this Committee. The DUP seems to be evading that. If we try to have some sort of micro-discussion on those issues, as Alan suggested, the DUP will use that to introduce other issues in order to avoid getting down to the serious issues. Nonetheless, in order to advance this discussion, which is what we are trying to do, Sinn Féin is prepared to go along with the proposal. I must say, however, that I am quite sceptical about the outcome, but we are prepared to consent to Seán’s proposal and see how this process develops. If we are to try to do some serious work on the issues outlined in the terms of reference, and people just play with that, we will obviously have to reassess our position. However, in order to move this discussion on, and with that health warning attached, Sinn Féin is prepared to go along with Seán’s proposal. Mr Ford: We certainly agree with Seán Farren’s proposal. There is clearly no way in which subgroups can function at this stage. Whether issues can be scoped in greater detail in this Committee will have to be demonstrated by those who participate. The fact that people are playing games is not much of a reason for walking out — otherwise this Committee would never have started. Lord Morrow: We need clarification that further scoping will be wide-ranging and on an issue-by-issue basis. We also need clarification that, if members — and I include the DUP in that — feel that it is necessary, further scoping is possible on the report that has already been produced. In fairness, Seán Farren mentioned “any other issues”. Mr McFarland: We are happy with the proposal. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Is that agreed? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): All right, we will refer that to the Secretary of State. Perhaps we can delay the establishment of subgroups rather than clear them from the table completely. Dr Farren: Perhaps the secretariat could help us to identify those issues that require further scoping and circulate them to us. We can then agree an order and add to that list if necessary. Obviously, the Secretary of State may have a view, but I would be surprised if he should intervene when we have reached a rare level of consensus. Mr McFarland: I presume that it is open for parties to bring their subject experts into the subgroup as substitutes for other members? Mrs D Dodds: What subgroup? Mr McFarland: Sorry, I meant the Committee. Mr Murphy: I assume that the topic for discussion at a PFG Committee meeting will be clearly identified from now on. We must know whom to bring along. There are two main topics listed for our attention. I am not averse to anyone raising something new, as that is his or her entitlement. However, if we get into the business of listing, as Seán Farren has suggested, and dabbling into a wide range of issues, it will be difficult to produce a report in the time allotted. It will be possible to report on the two main issues if the proper work is done and the Committee meetings are structured in such a way that we know what topic is coming up and who is to be sent along. Otherwise, the chances of our producing a report for September are very slim. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do members wish to propose a first item at this stage, or should the Clerks decide? Mrs D Dodds: I propose that we go back to the list that the parties produced, correlate that with the issues that were identified during the scoping exercise and the tentative report that resulted, and thus identify a running order. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The Clerks will do that and circulate it to members. Agreed? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We must also agree a date for the next meeting. Mr Murphy: Can I presume that that is item 3 out of the water and that the draft programme for work is not going to be referred to us? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Yes, although it could become part of that discussion too. The Secretary of State mentioned working in the context of the Programme for Government. What will be the date of our next meeting? Dr Farren: We would need to meet not later than next Monday. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We could meet on Wednesday. The economic subgroup will meet tomorrow and on Thursday. Mr McFarland: We now have a chunky programme of work to discuss: the institutional issue; the policing and justice issue; and all that relates to those topics. We must report by 18 August, is that correct? Dr Farren: We should meet on Wednesday. Mr McFarland: I should think we would need to meet twice or even three times a week. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Will we try for Wednesday at 10.00 am? Mr Murphy: I have a difficulty. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Is there a time that is suitable for everyone? Mr McNarry: Will both Chairmen be able to sit in for continuity? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Yes. Jim Wells is off today and sends apologies for the economic subgroup tomorrow too. I am not sure of his arrangements after that, but we will endeavour to ensure continuity. Mr McNarry: I am just mindful of the workload of the two Deputy Speakers. If that becomes a problem, will we be advised? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Yes, and then we will look at alternative arrangements. Wednesday at 10.00 am, is that OK? Mr Murphy: That is to look at all these issues and decide how we are proceeding from there? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Yes. Mr McNarry: Can “Slab” Murphy be the first witness to be brought forward? Mr Murphy: If you can find him. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The meeting is closed. Adjourned at 11.25 am. |