COMMITTEE ON THE Wednesday 2 August 2006 Members in attendance for all or part of proceedings: The Committee met at 10.05 am. (The Chairman (Mr Wells) in the Chair.) The Chairman (Mr Wells): Good morning. I will check on the substitutes, as I see some new faces. I will start with the DUP. What is the line-up this morning, Mrs Foster? Mrs Foster: Peter Weir will join us before 11.00 am, and Wilson Clyde and I are here instead of the other main players. I am Lord Morrow, and Wilson is Ian Paisley Jnr, so to speak. Mr McFarland: Mr Kennedy sends apologies; he is on holiday. Mr Cobain is representing Mr McNarry as our policing spokesperson. Mr Ford: I am me again, and I am expecting Naomi Long shortly. Mr Attwood: I am Dr Farren. Mrs D Kelly: I am me. Mr Murphy: Raymond McCartney is replacing Martin McGuinness, and I am the only other Sinn Féin representative today. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I remind members that the quorum for this Committee is seven. We must be careful not to drift below that number, as we would have to stop immediately. We do not have minutes to approve today as this is the first meeting of the institutions section of the Committee on the Preparation for Government (PFG). The minutes of this meeting will be carried forward to the next meeting of the PFG in this format. As there is a relatively high turnover of members, I must ask you to declare any relevant interests. Mrs Foster: I declare membership of the Northern Ireland Policing Board. Mr Attwood: Fred Cobain might not want to declare that. [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Cobain, you may wish to declare at this point. Mr Cobain: I am also a member of the Northern Ireland Policing Board. Mrs D Kelly: Alex and I are also members, Mr Chairman. Mr Ford: I should declare my membership of Antrim District Policing Partnership, and, on Naomi’s behalf, declare her membership of Belfast District Policing Partnership. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are no members of the PSNI or intelligence services present? I suspect that they would not declare an interest even if they were here. Mr Murphy: They are so intelligent that they would not be here. [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will bring a declaration of interest as an agenda item into each meeting in case new members have something to declare. Those of you who attended Monday’s meeting will know that it was decided that we would not be calling for papers from each party today. Therefore we will move straight into the substantive part of the meeting. I suggest that each party gives a five-minute presentation on the important issues, as it sees them, under the subject headings that are listed. I will call the parties in alphabetical order, with Mr Ford to speak first. After each party has given its views, we will open the question session on their positions. That follows the format that was adopted for the institutional strand of the Committee, but without papers. Are members content with that as a way to start the ball rolling? I cannot see any other way to start the discussion. Members do not have to deal with every issue on the list — there may be issues that some groups do not want to take part in — but it will be useful to get the ball rolling. I am sure that you are all familiar with the routine: it will be the Alliance Party, DUP, Sinn Féin, SDLP and the Ulster Unionist Party Assembly Group (UUPAG). Mr McFarland: Does everyone have a copy of the list? It would be quite useful for people fresh to the Committee. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There is a copy in members’ folders. It is important that new members have the list in front of them during today’s discussion. The topic is “Law and order issues”, starting at point 1, which is “Criminality” and ending with point 8, which is “Rule of law”. Mr Murphy: There are two additional issues that are not mentioned, or perhaps they are in a different order. The Chairman (Mr Wells): “Intelligence Services” and “Community Restorative Justice” have been included. They have been inserted in alphabetical order rather than added to the end of the list. Mr Ford, are you happy to start the ball rolling and give us the views of the Alliance Party? Mr Ford: A precedent, Mr Chairman. With regard to criminality and the rule of law, the Alliance Party, having proposed the Independent Monitoring Commission (IMC), believes that it will have a major role over the coming months in assessing criminality by various organisations. I want to put on record that we think it would be better if that opinion were given by the IMC rather than by Government Ministers doing pre-emptive spin on the IMC. However, there is a significant issue on the rule of law as to whether the Pledge of Office that Ministers are currently required to take is actually a commitment to solely peaceful and democratic means. We believe that the Pledge of Office needs to be strengthened in that respect. The Alliance Party believes that there are still clearly gaps in current Government proposals on community restorative justice (CRJ). There are merits in CRJ as a system. However, we have major concerns about ensuring that those engaged are fully vetted and about ensuring full co-operation with the police as an institution in the operation of CRJ schemes — in particular how dealing with antisocial behaviour measures, which do not fall within the criminal justice scheme, can be applied by CRJ schemes. The major issue — the devolution of policing and justice — is, it seems to me, almost an institutional one. As the Alliance Party has made clear, we do not believe that any of the four models proposed by the Government satisfy the need to ensure that the community as a whole engages in policing with the confidence of all parties in the Assembly. That can only be done within a single department of justice, which would cover all devolution issues — and we believe that list of devolution issues is more or less accurate. A single department of justice could only operate across the community with respect if it were covered within the context of collective responsibility within the Executive. We do not believe that the current proposal for power division, or, alternatively, mutual veto in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) style, provides a suitable recipe. The significant issue of timing appears to have been addressed in the most recent Westminster statement. There is, effectively, the triple lock — a cross-community vote in the Assembly, approval by the Secretary of State and approval by Parliament. This is probably on the basis that we need to see a year or so of reasonable progress before we could be sure that an Executive would be capable of dealing with those matters collectively and with confidence. Those are the key points as we see them. I have not addressed everything, but I have stuck within the time limit. 10.15 am The Chairman (Mr Wells): You certainly have. Mrs Foster, would you present the DUP submission? Mrs Foster: Yes. The DUP sees the IMC as having a role, as Mr Ford mentioned, in relation to the issues of criminality and paramilitarism, but we take a wider view. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee recently published its report ‘Organised Crime in Northern Ireland’. We will take that into consideration and, indeed, take other soundings on criminality and paramilitarism, because that is a huge issue for the whole community. Members will be aware that the Government have recently issued a protocol for CRJ. Like the Alliance party, the DUP believes that there are still gaps in that protocol with regard to dealing with recognised schemes. This Committee has the power to call witnesses. They do not have to come — they are not compellable — but it would be useful if somebody from David Hanson’s office could speak to the Committee about community restorative justice from the Government’s point of view. Presumably we will return to the list later, but community restorative justice could very easily be broken down in relation to the protocols that Mr Hanson has issued. He has broken that down, and I will come back to it later. Devolution of policing and justice is not a time-limited matter for the DUP. It can occur only when there is broad community support for it, and it obviously needs cross-community support within the Assembly. The touchstone for the devolution of powers is confidence in the institutions and their integrity, and that cannot be brought about by a timescale alone. In fact, a prescriptive timescale would have the opposite effect on confidence as the timescale would become the focus and not the institutions and their workings and outworkings. Rule of law is a primary issue for the DUP. The party had a huge issue with the on-the-runs legislation when it was before Parliament because it compromised the rule of law. It strongly believes that any devolution of powers must give primacy to the rule of law. I notice that the office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland is not on the list. The DUP would certainly like it to be added to the list so that we can discuss in full its role, remit and accountability, about which we have concerns. I could obviously go into more detail, but, like David Ford, I will limit my comments for now. We can return to these issues. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mrs Foster has raised two important issues. First, it is entirely within the gift of this Committee to add items or subsections to the law-and-order section such as, for example, the Police Ombudsman’s office, which she suggested. Other members are perfectly entitled to do likewise, and we will discuss the matter of calling witnesses later. Mrs Foster suggested that we should invite Mr Hanson to appear before the Committee, and the decision on whether we call expert witnesses and Government Ministers can be taken at a later stage. To return to our batting order, next to speak is Sinn Féin. Mr Murphy, I assume that you will speak? Mr Murphy: I will give a brief introduction. The Committee’s task is, as its official title suggests, to prepare for Government. Members have different perspectives on that; some see its purpose as simply to scope issues. Engaging in more focused work on the issues that the Committee has identified provides an opportunity to resolve some of those issues. Thus the policing and justice issue presents an opportunity for parties to find some sense of agreement or to explain positions that rule out agreement. Given that this is the Preparation for Government Committee, the devolution of policing and justice powers is a key issue. Although we have made progress on negotiations on policing and justice matters since the Good Friday Agreement, Sinn Féin’s stance is that it wants to see the Patten package completed. Sinn Féin wants a time frame for the transfer of powers, agreement on the departmental model and the powers to be transferred, and it wants the British Government to enact the necessary legislation to transfer the powers to a local Assembly and into all-Ireland arrangements. There is also an issue with regard to the role of British intelligence services in the North and their impact on the proper accountability mechanisms that must be built in to policing. Therefore there are issues around that, and no doubt the Committee will address them. I see that as one of the priorities given that this is a Committee on the Preparation for Government. Members have listed issues such as criminality, decommissioning and paramilitarism, and Sinn Féin is happy to discuss those items if members wish to. We have expressed our view that devolution could be restored tomorrow morning and that there are no issues outstanding which would preclude the re-establishment of the institutions. The issues listed here could be dealt with as that is happening. Those relating to loyalist activity and loyalist weapons are of concern to the community that I represent, but no issue is so great as to prevent the immediate reinstatement of the institutions. We had a lengthy exchange — some might say interrogation — with the DUP and other parties about criminality, decommissioning and paramilitarism. We would like to ask other parties, particularly the DUP, about the weapons of Ulster Resistance and the influence that the DUP may have with that organisation in putting weapons out of circulation and out of action. There has been an unfortunate, misplaced and politically-orientated hysteria around the operation of CRJ. Not only has CRJ been well able to defend itself and stand up for its own record, but it has been evaluated and assessed by justice oversight mechanisms which have found that to be so. It has also been assessed by human rights agencies, which have found that its methods stand up to scrutiny. However, Sinn Féin is happy to talk about CRJ, and if people want to call witnesses, we will be prepared to talk to them. One must bear in mind the time frame for the Committee’s work and deliberations. That might mitigate against getting into a series of witnesses, because inevitably one person’s evidence will spark the need for balance and for other witnesses to be called. However, if that is how the Committee wants to proceed, then we will consider it. There is a broad range of items under “Law and order issues”, and today’s meeting will be useful in ordering them. Some of the eight items are practically the same, and there is significant overlap. Today’s meeting should be useful in arranging them, as we did on Monday with “Institutional issues”. This section of the Committee — given that it is not a subgroup because the DUP would not partake in a subgroup to deal with policing and justice or the institutions — should proceed with putting the items in the order in which they should be addressed. Given that this is the Committee on the Preparation for Government, devolution and all related issues should be high on the agenda. Mr Attwood: One anticipates that there will be a significant difference of opinion on the eight items — or maybe there are more than eight now. However, the SDLP feels that the Committee may come to a greater agreement on some items when they are probed than is expected. I will concentrate on the “Devolution of policing and justice” and the “Intelligence services”. The Patten report recommended two approaches to national security: first, that MI5 take primacy in 2007, which the British have adopted; secondly, that the Chief Constable of the PSNI report to the Secretary of State, or a possible successor body, on national security matters. The SDLP would like to discuss with members why the second recommendation is the better option for the North. If MI5 takes primacy on national security, there will be risks around lack of accountability, mission creep and control. The preferred model is one in which the PSNI retains responsibility for national security and all other intelligence. That is the best way of sustaining policing and political confidence, and it is something that people around this table can sign up to. I was interested to hear Jeffrey Donaldson MP MLA, on behalf of the DUP on the Floor of the House of Commons during St Patrick’s week, asking some probing questions of the British Government Minister at that time about his concerns on the proposed primacy role being given to MI5 in the North. The second issue on which we can make useful progress is the devolution of policing and justice. That is in the paper that the SDLP will submit. We outline several principles to govern that matter. We believe that parties round the table can sign up to those principles in order to inform the nature and structure of the devolution of justice, if and when that arises. Included in those principles is the requirement that there be no encroachment upon the Patten policing institutions by any other models of devolution of justice that might be introduced; that there would be devolution, not just into strand one, but into strand two, given that there is a range of all-Ireland justice issues that are of concern to everyone around the table; that there would be cross-community safeguards in respect of sensitive devolved powers, such as the removal of the 50/50 requirement or the power of the Chief Constable to challenge a decision of the Parades Commission. There are several other principles, which we believe form the correct basis on which to conduct a conversation on policing and justice and which, to a greater or lesser extent, parties can sign up to. We welcome having that hard and heavy conversation as soon as possible, because there is more that we can agree on than is indicated by the public positions that one or all of us have taken from time to time. The third matter that I want to raise is policing, which, I recognise, is more limited. Given what the Secretary of State said in his Glenties speech, and other things that are being speculated on, there is a danger that, with regard to policing in the North, we are heading towards a situation in which there are two legitimacies. That is: the legitimacy of the new policing arrangements to which all the parties subscribed; and some other legitimacy, in which one party does not sign up to those institutions and has a different approach when it comes to relationships with the police and signing up to lawful authority and the rule of law. That is a strategic threat to that part of the Good Friday Agreement, which, over the past few years, has worked best: namely, the policing arrangements. More fundamentally, however, it destabilises not just the prospect of the restoration of the institutions, but their sustainability thereafter. Though that is a limited point, given the range of views around the table, it is one that this Committee needs to resolve. That is why I concur with the DUP that we should call witnesses — though not in large numbers — including the Secretary of State, so that we can probe what he meant in his Glenties speech, and representatives of MI5. I would prefer to hear someone from London, but if not, then Richard Dennis. Mr McFarland: As you do. [Laughter.] Eliza, get your stuff ready. Mr Attwood: If she is willing to come. Assuming that she is not going to come — although she might surprise us — then I would want to hear from Richard Dennis, who is the head of MI5 in the North. The party has a draft paper on all of these matters, but given that you are not compelling us to hand it over, Mr Chairman, it will be submitted in the next couple of weeks. I concentrated on those two or three issues because there is useful work that we can do. I am not diluting issues that others have talked about. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Thank you, Mr Attwood. That witness session would certainly be an interesting one, if ever it comes about. The Press Gallery will be packed. Mr McFarland: I was much encouraged by Monday’s meeting, in which, for the very first time, we had first elevens from each party. I am equally encouraged today, because it looks as if everyone is sitting down for the first time ready to discuss policing. I want to take a quick look at how my party sees the current situation on some of the issues. 10.30 am The last IMC report stated that the republican leadership appeared to be serious but that there was still a level of criminality in the organisation. Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams were then challenged on the issue of criminality in various forums. Their response was that the authorities should deal with it, and that was encouraging. Shortly after that, there were raids in south Armagh. I will not go into detail on that, as we have had that discussion, and the case is still presumably before the courts. However, a fortnight ago a report by the Organised Crime Task Force confirmed that there had been a reduction in republican criminality. That too is encouraging. Nonetheless, we will have to await the publication of the next IMC report on normalisation at the beginning of September, as that will include a threat assessment. That will be followed by another IMC report at the beginning of October. Last week, the Secretary of State said that criminality and republican paramilitarism had gone. He was perhaps slightly over-enthusiastic in his assessment, but, no doubt, the IMC will inform us in due course. The DUP raised the issue of decommissioning in its original submission, and that is why it appears on the list. We have on record that William McCrea and Ian Paisley Jnr accepted that decommissioning had taken place, but the IMC report stated that some part of the IRA had held weapons back. Martin McGuinness and Conor Murphy denied that. However, I was taken aback by a recent report in the ‘Sunday Tribune’ that the south Derry IRA had left, taking with it the cache of weapons that it had held back. Perhaps that will account for those weapons that had been held back. If so, presumably the next IMC report will state that those weapons are now outwith the organisation. We will have to wait and see. We need to address the issue of where the IRA is going. If it turns itself into a republican legion that meets every Tuesday to tell war stories, that is fine. However, if it is to remain as a fully functioning army, albeit without its weapons, we must question why it should remain in existence in that format, given what the leadership tells us. It will be useful to see movement or to have an idea of where the IRA is going, because it directly impinges on the issue of policing and armies existing in the state. The fact that there may be a second army running around excites the Republic. It is an issue that will affect policing and justice here. The last take that we had on the devolution of policing and justice was the comprehensive agreement. William McCrea said that it is the DUP’s document, and everyone else should get their hands off it. Minister Hanson said in the House of Commons that the Government would deliver it in the autumn. Peter Robinson said in the Assembly that that was not the case, and I think he confirmed that on Monday. Therefore there is some confusion, but it is worth reminding ourselves of Sinn Féin’s statement on the comprehensive agreement, which read: “As a result of our discussions we now have a commitment from the British Government and the DUP to the transfer of powers on policing and justice to the Assembly as soon as possible, a DUP commitment to a speedy, time framed discussion on the departmental model and the powers to be transferred with a view to agreement by the time the Executive is established”. I think that was in December, and the modalities were discussed in February, according to the timetable. It was encouraging that there was a speedy intent at some sort of discussion on the issue. I wish to cover the intelligence services briefly. Part of the reason we are discussing this is due to the fact that the SDLP has spent the past four years complaining bitterly about Special Branch, what a ghastly organisation it was, and how intelligence handling should be removed from Special Branch immediately, because it was a force within a force. No doubt, the Government listened to the SDLP, as they usually do, and decided to transfer intelligence gathering on republicans outside Special Branch. Is the SDLP surprised, given all its shouting and demands, that the Government have decided to move intelligence handling somewhere else? It has gone to MI5, partly because it is hard to get one’s head round the prospect of Gerry Kelly as minister for policing and justice overseeing a police service handling republican informants. There are logical reasons why it has gone to the intelligence services. Community restorative justice was an issue when I sat on the Policing Board with Mr Cobain, as it was for other colleagues on the first Policing Board. Various organisations spoke to us. Community restorative justice continues to be an extremely vexed issue, and it is still not right. No doubt we will have healthy discussions on that. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I thank everyone for being so succinct and keeping to time. We are in danger of becoming a well-organised Committee. I am sure that somebody will sort that out. We have suggestions for new sub-headings. Some interesting points have been raised, and some extremely interesting suggestions for witnesses. We have the basis for some probing questions on those presentations. Mrs Foster has already indicated that she wishes to ask a question. Does anyone else want to come in at this stage? Is everyone happy? That is unusual. Mr McFarland: The suggestion that we need to sort these into some sort of order is quite useful. Mrs Foster: I want to pick up on some of the comments that were made after I spoke, Chairman, if that is in order. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. Obviously members took the opportunity to come back on the various presentations. It is only right that you get a chance to answer. I am surprised that no one wants to follow Mrs Foster. Mrs Foster: I am sure that they will. Alex Attwood is right about the Secretary of State’s Glenties speech; dangers present themselves from the distinction that he is trying to create between “constitutional” and “practical” arrangements. It would be worthwhile to hear his thinking. Sometimes he makes these statements and it is hard to clarify where he is coming from. There are inherent dangers if he is suggesting that Sinn Féin can involve itself in what he would call practical support, but not constitutional support, for the police. In relation to paramilitarism, loyalism and republicanism, a member of the PUP is now sitting on the Policing Board. That does not mean that the UVF is not involved in criminality and paramilitarism, and that needs to be brought out into the open. Just because a party takes its position on the Policing Board does not inherently mean that that party supports policing and justice, and that must be discussed. Alan McFarland mentioned comments made by colleagues in the Committee about decommissioning. The DUP has accepted that decommissioning took place. However, the manner in which it took place did not bring about the maximum amount of confidence in the community as a whole — that has always been our position. Recent reports from Scotland suggest that weapons are being sold. Therefore, we still say that decommissioning remains an issue because of the lack of confidence surrounding the event that took place some time ago. Alan McFarland also referred to the comprehensive agreement. The deputy leader of the DUP made it clear where the party stands on that matter. He stated on Monday that the comprehensive agreement was not signed up to by his party or Sinn Féin. Alan quoted from the Sinn Féin document, so it is unlikely that the DUP would have had any input into that. Mr Attwood: I have a few brief comments. Although the issue of loyalism, raised by Arlene Foster, is already included under the broader subject of paramilitarism, it should be put firmly on the agenda. The various loyalist-related public displays and activities in recent days, the speculation about the UVF and whatever is going on between the British Government and elements within loyalism mean that there is the potential to be productive on issues surrounding loyalism, if they are properly handled. Conversely, loyalism may endure and ultimately destabilise the restored institutions because of what loyalists may, or may not, get up to. I am also concerned that the loyalist display of strength over the weekend provided evidence that, despite organisations saying that they are going out of business, they maintain their power base and retain their ability to impose their will or culture of control in their communities, something that is not necessarily restricted to loyalist groupings. The broader issue, and the future of loyalism in particular, should concern us. Alan commented on the SDLP’s efforts in relation to Special Branch. The question is not whether there should be a Special Branch, because Patten said that there should be; rather, it is about the nature of intelligence gathering and the management and accountability of any Special Branch or intelligence branch within the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Due to the work on the Stevens, Blakey and Crompton Reports by Alan McFarland and others on the Policing Board, the Oversight Commissioner has said that: “Intelligence standards now comply with best international practice”. Although high vigilance must be maintained on intelligence matters, there is no doubt that many corners have been turned, including the deactivation of very large numbers of agents. Accountability has increased and the standard of intelligence gathering has been raised to an international level. Yet MI5, which has no such standards or accountability, will have primacy over intelligence gathering in the North. Even a senior MI5 operative conceded to me at a meeting in the NIO that there was a danger of mission creep, whereby MI5 would realise that given the unique criminal and terror world in the North — The Chairman (Mr Wells): Sorry, Alex. Will you explain what “mission creep” means? Mr Attwood: MI5, the police and anyone who looks at the North realises that the situation here is unique because the threat to national security and the criminal threat both emanate from the same source. The view of the British Government is that the threat to the stability of the state emanates from republican groups that are also involved in crime. Consequently, intelligence that emanates from the criminal side of an organisation’s enterprise gives an insight into the national security threat that it poses and vice versa. Therefore, there is a need for a joined-up intelligence approach in the North. As a result of the work of the Policing Board and the various reports that have been produced, the PSNI has begun to adopt such an approach by applying the best standards to intelligence gathering and accessing that intelligence, wherever it may be, within the criminal and terror organisations. The danger is that MI5, which was intended to have a strictly national security responsibility, will quickly realise that in order to understand what is happening within the organisation that carries the national security threat, it is also necessary to gather intelligence from the criminal side of that organisation — and indeed MI5 already knows that. Mission creep happens when MI5 does not restrict itself to gathering intelligence on the national security threat but broadens its intelligence base to access information from the criminal side of the organisations, because that is where information relating to the national security threat may arise. When that happens MI5 will begin to crowd into the area for which the British Government propose that the PSNI should have exclusive responsibility, namely gathering intelligence on the criminal side. That is the danger and the risk. On a positive note, the views and concerns of the DUP, Sinn Féin and members of the Policing Board on that can be worked through, and we can arrive at a far better place. 10.45 am I want to echo some of the concerns raised about restorative justice. The protocol deals inadequately with some issues and fails to deal with many others. By a happy coincidence, the life of the Preparation for Government Committee may mirror the life of the consultation period for restorative justice. This Committee will be discussing restorative justice at the same time as the British Government are consulting on their protocol. There is justified hysteria about restorative justice, and a weight of evidence about bad practice. Over the past 10 days, many commentators have stated that we must get restorative justice right. The Chairman (Mr Wells): If there were to be a question about “mission creep” on a TV quiz show, I would be able to answer it. [Laughter.] It might take me two hours, mind you. Mr Ford: The issues highlighted by Arlene and Alex are significant for all parties and several organisations. The issues have significant relevance for two of the groups on this Committee. I look forward to all parties, including Sinn Féin, playing a constructive role in future policing. We must examine that role in relation to participation in the institutions and respect for the rule of law and the Police Service. For example, the Alliance Party is not represented on the Policing Board, but it fully respects the position of the PSNI as being the legitimate institution maintaining the rule of law in Northern Ireland. On the other hand, the PUP has a representative in the institutions, but I doubt whether its associates fully respect the rule of law as I, and most people, understand it. We must examine attitudes towards the institutional side of participation, which is why I initially flagged up the matter of the ministerial Pledge of Office. The Pledge of Office covers only Ministers, but many other people should also be covered. There are differences between loyalist and republican paramilitaries in relation to the intelligence services. Alex said that the national security threat and the criminal threat share the same position. I am not sure that that is the view of the British Government, given the manner in which they deal with loyalist crime. Loyalist paramilitaries are not seen as a threat to national security, although they are, potentially, a destabilising threat in Northern Ireland. If the Police Service is left to deal with all matters relating to loyalist crime, and MI5 deals with republican criminal activity, there will be major concerns about all sections of society being treated equally in demanding respect for the rule of law. That issue could be teased out with the Secretary of State and the head of MI5 — when they turn up. Mr McFarland: I want to clarify the expression “mission creep”. Your mission is to take a glass of water to the door. You get halfway around the room when somebody says: “Will you open the window on your way out?” You open the window and are halfway between the window and the door when somebody says: “Will you take the jug out with you and fill it up with water?” The basic idea is that you have an original mission and, as you embark on it, the mission grows. Mr Ford: That is the difference between a lawyer and a soldier. Mr Murphy: We could have a broad general discussion on all these topics. One of the drawbacks of having a Hansard report is that members feel obliged to set the record straight because it will be read in the future. I would prefer that we got down to identifying specific areas for discussion. We can go round and round, restating our positions on a range of topics, but most of the parties’ positions are well known. It is time that we got to work on them. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There have been various suggested additions and amendments to the list. Perhaps this is an appropriate time to seek agreement on those. We can then move on to the matter of witnesses, which Mr Attwood and Mrs Foster have already raised. Mrs Foster: Mr Chairman, do you believe that some issues on that list could be linked? I have added to the list, but perhaps members could try to make it more succinct. The Chairman (Mr Wells): First, are there any glaring omissions? Secondly, can we combine some of the items? Do we wish to create sub-headings? Mr Attwood: If Arlene has concerns about the Police Ombudsman, that topic should be incorporated under the “Policing” heading, rather than be a dedicated one. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mrs O’Loan would be keen to state that her office is entirely separate from the policing institutions, and that she heads a completely independent body. However, we could certainly create a “Policing/Police Ombudsman” heading. Mrs Foster: I have no difficulty with those items being linked, despite the accountability mechanisms being completely different. Mr McFarland: Mr Chairman, may I tease something out? Colleagues will know that this list was produced from issues that the parties raised during their opening submissions. Criminality, decommissioning and paramilitarism are fairly clear; those matters were raised by the DUP. The SDLP raised the matter of the intelligence services. Community restorative justice (CRJ) was raised as a common issue. The devolution of policing and justice is obviously part of the modalities. However, the matters of the rule of law and policing — other than where they are bound up with criminality and the general acceptance of policing — are not clear. In particular, Sinn Féin is the only party that does not accept policing or the police. What does “rule of law” mean in that context? The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Alliance Party specifically wanted the heading of “Rule of law” to be included. Members took the principled decision that if a party thought a matter was important, it was included. We did not argue that point. Mr Ford: The Alliance Party raised the rule of law as one of the topics that were covered early on. That does not necessarily mean that it wishes to highlight it as an individual issue. I suspect that it may well be bound up with criminality in the context of any meaningful discussion. Mr McFarland: Logically, we can do that. I believe that the Police Ombudsman is a separate issue because it concerns oversight, which has been a running issue for a number of years. That matter could fit in at item 8. The other items are fairly clear in that they have a particular slant on the discussion and have particular issues attached to them. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Before Mr Weir speaks, I wish to point out that we received a declaration of interest from each member at the beginning of the meeting. Mr Weir, I think that you may have something to declare. Mr Weir: Apart from my genius? [Laughter.] Presumably, that declaration is that I am a member of the Northern Ireland Policing Board. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are you also a member of a district policing partnership (DPP)? Mr Weir: No. The two positions are mutually exclusive, as I believe Dolores Kelly can attest. I believe that she had to resign from a DPP in order to join the Policing Board. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am sorry that I had to ask for that declaration, but it was an important step before you make your first contribution. Mr Weir: I take on board the points that have been raised by my colleague Arlene Foster, by Alan McFarland and by David Ford. On the matter of combining issues, if the rule of law were included with criminality, it is important — as the Alliance Party and others were driving at — that there must be an acceptance by all parties of the rule of law and, indeed, support for the police and the institutions of the law. On one level, that is a slightly separate issue than simply not being involved in criminality, although it can certainly be linked to criminality. Those two matters are inter-related, but it may be helpful to combine them. Members should not feel restricted to the eight issues listed, if they can think of additional matters. There has not been any discussion on the order of dealing with the items or, indeed, whether we call witnesses. I presume that the topics are simply in alphabetical order at this stage? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. The order is no indication of importance at all. The topics are simply in alphabetical order. Mr Ford: Peter Weir’s suggestion has been helpful. We have talked in the past about matters such as a “culture of lawfulness”, which means slightly more than “not criminality”. Moreover, Peter used the word “parties”, and we have emphasised that “Paramilitarism” is not simply a republican issue; it affects society in general. Mrs Foster: I am loath to lose “Rule of law” from the list, because that is the most fundamental of all the law and order issues. It underlies most of what we shall discuss. If members want to remove it from the list, that is all very well, but, for us, the rule of law is the most fundamental building block in all of this. Mr Ford: I was attempting to be helpful in agreeing with your colleague that we made the heading “Criminality/Rule of law”, and “Rule of law” was removed somewhere along the way. Mrs Foster: My point is that we could have “Rule of law/Paramilitarism”, “Rule of law/Policing”, or even “Rule of law/Everything”. The rule of law underlies everything before us. We have not really talked about the criminal justice system in any meaningful way this morning. Obviously, the rule of law also underlies that. I am loath to lose “Rule of law” from the list. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We must have consensus, so it is worth saying, Mrs Foster, that if you maintain that position, “Rule of law” will stay on the list. I just want to point that out, Mr Ford. Mr Ford: I was seeking to assist the Committee in shortening the list. No doubt, even in this slightly different format, the Committee will continue to be as creative as usual in covering topics. Mr Weir: The list’s length does not matter greatly as long as the topics are being covered. It does not matter ultimately whether issues are grouped. If we end up with a list of 14 issues, we will cover the 14 issues. We could group exactly the same number of issues under three or four different headings, but the same amount of work has to be done one way or the other, and the same number of topics is to be covered. It is not overly helpful to get too fixated with having a short list; what is important is that the topics get covered. Mr Murphy: My suggestion is along similar lines. At Monday’s Committee sitting, we agreed a couple of broad, generic headings for the institutional issues, with sub-headings underneath those. It strikes me that there are a number of issues. One is around the issue of devolution, and there are issues that come under that heading, including intelligence. Then there is the broad issue that members are calling “Rule of law”, and all the issues that fit into that. Separate issues may be the Ombudsman’s Office and community restorative justice. If we could agree, the Committee could discuss a broad topic, under which would be a number of sub-headings, at its next meeting, and take a day to deal with that topic. If we were to take a list of eight headings, there would be a substantial amount of overlap, and one day’s business would drift into another day’s or would revisit a previous meeting’s discussions. It might be more helpful to proceed as we did on Monday, where three or four broad, generic headings were agreed, under which members were happy to have a list of sub-headings that they wished to see included. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I sat in on Monday’s sitting, and the way in which the matter was dealt with by that Committee, which is this Committee but with a very different membership, was very useful. Before I call Mr McFarland, it is worth saying that if the fear is that the Chairman will not allow for debate some burning issue that a member or a party wishes to raise because it is not on the list, Mr Molloy and I both gave an assurance at last week’s meeting that that would not happen. If an issue is related to law and order, it will be ruled admissible, so no one will be restricted. To follow on from Mr Murphy’s comments, once we agree headings, we will try to insert the sub-headings. That was done much more easily at Monday’s sitting, because the parties had given their views in writing on what the sub-headings should be. We do not have views in writing before us today, but we do have the opportunity to discuss the matter now. Mr McFarland: We agreed on Monday that a useful template was to dig out the Belfast Agreement, because it contained headings for the institutions. I wonder whether the agreement contains headings for policing and justice. Do we have a copy handy? The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will soon find out for you. Mr McFarland: The agreement may only contain one heading, in which case it will not be helpful. However, the agreement proved quite useful in providing headings for institutional changes, because it divided up the institutions into bite-sized chunks, as it were. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will look at that for you, Mr McFarland. Mr McFarland: Does it have sub-headings under which each of these might readily fall? 11.00 am Mr Weir: The problem with many law and order issues is that because the agreement essentially set up the Patten inquiry, they were put on the long finger. Many law and order issues will not be mentioned at all. Mrs Foster: Can we have three sub-headings? The generic term “Policing” would cover policing and the Police Ombudsman. The second generic term “Rule of law” would cover criminality, paramilitarism, decommissioning and community restorative justice. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Can you take it slowly? It is good stuff, but we are trying to write it down. Mrs Foster: The third heading would be “Devolution of policing and justice”, which would include the intelligence services. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Has everyone been able to — Mrs Foster: That is all the subheadings that I have to suggest. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are those suggestions simply vehicles for discussion? Mrs Foster: Yes. Mr McFarland: Might CRJ not fit more readily under policing as an issue or is it essentially a paramilitary issue? Mrs Foster: I have no firm views about under which heading it might fit. Mr McFarland: It could fit under one or the other; it depends on how it is viewed. Mr Weir: It depends on whether it is viewed a paramilitary issue. Mrs Foster: It could be viewed as a rule of law issue. Mr Ford: Is there an argument, on the basis of what Mr Attwood was saying, for making CRJ a stand-alone item, given the significance of the consultation taking place on it? Mrs Foster: We could have four sub-headings. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do members have any comments? Remember, we have to reach consensus. Mrs Long: I wish to declare an interest: I am a member of Belfast District Policing Partnership. What specific sub-headings were suggested under “Policing”? Mrs Foster: “Policing”, which was at number 7; and the “Police Ombudsman”. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do members have any suggestions on that position? Do they feel that it might prejudice their position? We went through this same routine on Monday, which I found very helpful. Mr McFarland: Is everyone happy with CRJ? It makes sense to have it as a stand-alone issue, as it would be possible to deal with it and produce a sub-report on it that relates directly to the consultation period. That would save it getting caught up in other issues. Mr Raymond McCartney: I do not understand why CRJ should be seen as a separate issue from the devolution of policing and justice. We could say that MI5 and criminality should be under one sub-heading. Mr McFarland: It was a purely practical suggestion. Mr Raymond McCartney: There is a danger of people weighting the issues in a particular way. The suggestion that CRJ should be in a sub-heading with paramilitarism shows the intention of some people. I cannot understand why CRJ should be a stand-alone issue. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Where should CRJ be placed? Mr Raymond McCartney: It could go under “Devolution of policing and justice”. Mr Ford: I suggested that CRJ should stand alone because I saw it not just as an issue of paramilitarism. It is not the same as devolution, which is more to do with the institutional issues. CRJ concerns a range of issues, but because it is a hot topic — and Mr Attwood mentioned the consultation period — I suggested that it stand alone. Mr Attwood: It is hard to find the best place to put CRJ. If we put it under “Policing”, we will create a sense that CRJ is a policing project, which it is certainly not meant to be. Also, it does not sit naturally under the heading “Devolution of policing and justice”. I agree with Raymond that putting it under the heading “Rule of law and criminality” would make it very loaded, so that is not the place in which to put it. A fourth category could be created: some justice issues need to be flagged up. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr McCartney’s view is that there should not be a separate category. Mr Attwood: Such a category would be for justice issues and could include restorative justice. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is a possible way forward. Mr Attwood: There are some residual items. A fourth category could obviate any difficulties that might be created by making CRJ a stand-alone item, as Mr McCartney put it, and would integrate it into something broad, which is more appropriate. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Everyone seems to be happy with that compromise. Mrs Foster: I suggested that “Intelligence services” should go under the heading “Devolution of policing and justice”, but I wonder whether it should go under the heading “Policing issues”. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. Mrs Foster: Therefore the first category would be “Policing issues” and would cover policing itself, the Police Ombudsman and the intelligence services. Mr Murphy: It will be a burning issue in the devolution of policing and justice. However, as you say, where issues are formally listed does not preclude their being raised under other headings. This issue is very relevant to the transfer of powers: in fact, it will be key to the transfer of powers. Because issues are in one box or another does not prevent them from being raised during discussions on policing. The issue fits into both categories, and there will be a degree of overlap in some topics that will have an impact across a broad range of areas. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It might be worth putting on record that we have moved various items back and forth. As things stands, the first heading will be “Policing issues” and will include the intelligence services, the Police Ombudsman and policing itself. The second heading will be “Rule of law” and will include criminality, paramilitarism and decommissioning. The third is “Devolution of policing and justice”, which will include justice and CRJ. Mrs Foster: CRJ is a separate issue. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is correct. It has been scribbled out. Mrs Foster: Under the sub-heading “Justice”, you could put residual justice issues. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do we have agreement on the content so that it can be minuted and so that we know exactly where we stand on each strand of issues? We will then need to prioritise them. Mrs Foster: Will a new list be issued? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. A new list will be sent out. We need to prioritise the issues in order of importance — those, presumably, with which we will want to deal first. That will concentrate our minds on the witnesses that we may need to call for each section. It might be more difficult to reach agreement on that. Which is the priority: policing, the rule of law, devolution of policing and justice, or justice? Mr Murphy: I made the point in my initial submission that, since we are the Preparation for Government Committee, devolution should be given priority, although I accept that all the issues are important. We can discuss the rule of law, but we could end up spending six and a half hours restating the Sinn Féin position and more than four hours restating the DUP position. That can be useful, but in order to get work done we should hone issues on which there is likely to be some agreement among the parties, and the devolution of policing and justice is the most likely to offer opportunities for resolving issues. Mr McFarland: There are some issues into which the Committee can have direct input because all five parties are represented; there are others on which we would wish to state our opinions but on which the Committee’s direct effect is less. That may influence our thinking. Logically, we would pick the easiest issues, agree them and stash them away. Unfortunately, these issues are neuralgic, and I am not sure that we will get any quick fixes. As Conor said, rather than restating party positions, which are noted in the Hansard reports of the first month and a half of meetings, it is a question of deciding what the Committee can usefully do to make a difference. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Can the other parties give their views on this? Mr Attwood: As was said at the beginning, the SDLP thinks that common positions can be found on the devolution of policing and justice and intelligence services. Given that that potential exists, the SDLP would like the devolution of policing and justice to be dealt with first. Thereafter, the SDLP is not dogmatic about where the Committee should go. Policing and intelligence services seem to be the natural second topic, and, as I said, the SDLP is relaxed about what should be discussed third and fourth. The four categories are useful. Given the time frame to which the Committee is working, the categories show a natural order and a realistic amount of work. Mr Ford: Like the SDLP, the Alliance Party is fairly relaxed on this. However, there is logic in Conor’s comments that, as this is the Committee on the Preparation for Government, the institutional links between the Monday discussions and the devolution of policing and justice indicate that it would be logical to deal with those issues first. I will certainly not veto other members’ thoughts on what should happen after that. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Three parties are in favour of discussing the devolution of policing and justice first. It will be interesting to see whether the Committee reaches consensus on this. Mrs Foster: This is where the wheels come off. [Laughter.] I have already stated that rule of law is the DUP’s priority. Other parties might believe that the devolution of policing and justice is the most important item on the list, but the DUP cannot subscribe to that. However, if the Committee is trying to agree a work plan, without prioritising the issues, that is a different matter. I do not want it to be recorded that Arlene Foster felt that the rule of law was less important than the devolution of policing and justice. Therefore, to me, prioritisation is the issue. I want to clarify that. Mr Ford: In my presentation this morning, I did not suggest anything other than that the rule of law was very important — it was the first thing that I highlighted. However, formulating a work plan is not the same as overall prioritisation. Mrs Foster: Yes, I am just clarifying that because the Chairman initially said that members were to prioritise. If that is the case, the rule of law would be the DUP’s top priority. Mr Weir: Our particular reason for highlighting this is that if the Committee is considering these issues to prepare for government — the reason that the Committee was created — the DUP regards acceptance of the rule of law and support for policing institutions as fundamental and of key significance to preparation for government. From a timetabling point of view, the DUP can be flexible as to where issues are slotted in. However, although the Committee has a reasonable amount of time, if there are opportunities to agree a broad view, there may be merit in having a debate on restorative justice, on which there has, at least, been consultation. It depends on future discussions, but I would caution members that if they think that the devolution of policing and justice will be an easy issue to crack, they are being overly optimistic. There may not be the consensus that members expect. Mrs Foster: The second issue that I want to address is that, if the Committee is to call witnesses, Committee staff will need some time to set up those meetings. Members do not want to be here next Wednesday without the witnesses that they felt should attend. I do not know how long those arrangements would take. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Members will need to take a decision on that today. Mr McFarland: Chairman, you will be aware that a key element of the initial submissions from the UUP and DUP was that it is difficult to see any progress being made without an end to criminality and paramilitarism and an acceptance of policing, by republicans in particular. That remains the case, and until an IMC report is published that says that those issues have been sorted out, it is difficult to see how discussions on policing will progress seriously. 11.15 am Having said all that, I return to the point of whether it would be more useful for the Committee to attempt to tease out the issues on which the parties can have some influence, rather than the parties simply restating their positions on activities that, pending the IMC’s reporting that they have stopped, will continue to block the devolution of policing. It would be wrong to think that, because the Committee is trying to deal with issues on which it can do proper work, those issues take priority; clearly they do not. Party positions on the background to this are recorded in Hansard. The question is, would the Committee be better off spending its time examining new issues on which it could have some practical bearing in the event of the conditions for the devolution of policing and justice being right? Mrs Long: I reiterate that as far as the Alliance party is concerned, the rule of law is the foundation on which all the other structures will be built. Whatever the architecture for devolution of policing and justice, the transition must be built on a foundation whereby everybody has a similar view as to what the rule of law entails and concept of what justice and policing are about. It must be a shared definition because, when policing and justice are devolved, there will be a degree of collective responsibility for them. It is important that that be established. Putting it further down the list in no way diminishes its importance. As far as the Alliance Party is concerned, it is the key that will unlock the whole issue. Alan McFarland talked about criminality “by republicans in particular”. I am not sure why that should be the case. His Assembly party has structural links to armed, active paramilitary organisations, so it seems ludicrous to suggest that only republicans need to address the issues of paramilitarism and criminality. The Committee needs to consider paramilitarism and criminal activity across the board. The point was made that republican paramilitarism could be viewed as a threat to national security, but both loyalist and republican criminality and paramilitarism have a destabilising effect on Northern Ireland. Also, those activities have a negative effect on local people and a huge bearing on the effectiveness of policing across the community. Members need to go into this with open minds and balanced viewpoints, not in finger-pointing mode, which would not be constructive. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I will allow Mr McFarland to answer that. Mr McFarland: The reason I was — Mrs D Kelly: Sorry, Chairman, but my point was essentially the same. Members have sat here for over an hour and have yet to hear one mention of loyalist paramilitarism from the Ulster Unionist Party. That causes grave concern, given the level of activity by loyalist paramilitaries, not only in Belfast but across the North. Mr McFarland: There is no doubt that loyalist and republican paramilitarism needs to be sorted out, but members need to remember why we are here. We are members of a Preparation for Government Committee. We are not in Government trying to sort this out. Sinn Féin is the only party with its own private army that could end up in Government. Mrs D Kelly: What about the UUPAG? Mrs Long: I must contend that my point was that your Assembly group now has a direct link, through the PUP, to the UVF. Therefore, it is not sufficient to say that Sinn Féin is the only party at the table with a direct link to paramilitarism. That needs to be recognised. The UUP has gained benefits from its link to the PUP, but there will also be disbenefits, including the link that it now has to the UVF. Mr McFarland: The Committee has spent five hours on this, with the Alliance Party getting very exercised. We went through it in enormous detail. Mrs Long: It clearly has not sunk in. Mr McFarland: The ins and outs are all in here. If you want to have a row, we can have a row. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We are discussing the prioritisation of topics. Mr McFarland: The reason I said “in particular” was that Sinn Féin “in particular” might be going into Government. Mr Ford: Will Alan McFarland confirm that by that statement he means that he does not expect the UUPAG to be in Government? Mr McFarland: Nobody is going into Government until this Committee sorts out what is happening. These are not issues at the moment, but when the time comes, we will see whether they are. My point is that — The Chairman (Mr Wells): Things were going too smoothly, so that was bound to end. Let us get back to the issue. Mrs Foster: For clarity, and to bring the discussion back on track, we are not talking about priorities; we are talking about a work plan. The Chairman (Mr Wells): “Priorities” was perhaps the wrong word; “sequencing” would have been better. Mr Attwood: To emphasise Arlene’s point, the rule of law and the acceptance of democracy are the parents of this. Everything arises and flows from those. Therefore any work plan is not meant to make any issue any less of a priority. Alan talked about the business of this Committee, but we should also consider what is happening in the real world. There are several issues to consider in the natural order of things. First is the devolution of policing and justice. That is a meaty issue that is relevant to the restoration of the institutions. Policing is a pretty natural place to go for our second item, given the live debate around it, which was demonstrated by the Secretary of State’s speech in Glenties. Policing is a real-world issue. Restorative justice is the third topic that we should discuss, given its fundamental and primary impact on the rule of law and given that we will have consultation on the protocol soon. The fourth subject should be the more global issue of the rule of law and criminality. It suits our time frame, given the report that is due in October on the rule of law and criminality, which Alan mentioned. The Chairman (Mr Wells): One of the great benefits of having Hansard is that everyone has now explained that, by agreeing to a certain sequence, we are not putting any weight of importance on particular matters. You may be hung out to dry on that decision because you have made it very clear. We seem to be reaching broad agreement. Assuming that that is the case, we need to consider two issues. First, should we call witnesses? I am very conscious of Mr McFarland’s point about how calling witnesses could create a long process for the Committee. Secondly, given those concerns, whom do we call? I take it that the devolution of policing and justice is agreed as the first subject — although perhaps not the most important — with which we deal. If we accept Alex’s suggestion that policing, including the intelligence services becomes the second issue, members seem to be reasonably relaxed about what become the third and fourth. Mrs Foster: I am happy to say that the DUP is OK with that work plan. If the rule of law is the last topic, it is almost like a catch-all that will deal with anything that has been missed in the previous three. The Chairman (Mr Wells): On that basis, we have our sequence: the devolution of policing and justice; policing; justice issues; and the rule of law. Is everyone happy with that? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Good; I am very pleased to hear that. We need to discuss witnesses. I have scribbled down a few ideas. Mr Cobain: Before we start discussing that, I should say that we are a time-bound Committee. I do not mind calling witnesses, provided that they will add to the debate. I am not in favour of calling witnesses so that we can have a bit of a brickbat with them. Some of the issues that we have talked about are irrelevant. There is no possibility of having an in-depth discussion about the intelligence services in this Committee; that goes over my head. We have no direct link to the Police Ombudsman, who reports directly to the Secretary of State and then to Parliament. If we are looking to enhance the debate or bring witnesses to give us a better understanding of the subject, that is fine, but I am not happy with bringing them here for no reason other than to have a bit of a brickbat with them. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The economic subgroup has dived in, invited a huge number of witnesses and heard some wonderful stuff. However, my experience of the subgroup has been that members can get bogged down in an awful lot of material. We accept that we must be very selective. Some core people must be invited because, without their input, we will get nowhere. However, I will be guided by the Committee on how extensive that list should be. Mr McFarland: Chairman, I raised this issue on Monday. Everyone around the table has been at this for a number of years: members have had discussions within their own parties, with other parties and in Leeds Castle or wherever. Indeed, three Northern Ireland Policing Board members are present. Within this room, there is a fair degree of expertise on most of the issues. Fred is right: if we are unsighted on certain issues, or do not have the necessary details, it may be worth calling witnesses who can enlighten us. However, we do not have time to fire people in just to have a tilt at them. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Obviously the NIO must be on that list, whether at ministerial or permanent secretary level, no matter how we deal with the issue. The Police Service of Northern Ireland or the IMC are other suggestions, but I am just throwing out ideas. The devolution of policing is an NIO issue. That brings us to the decision: will we invite the Secretary of State — or one of his Ministers — to this Committee, and is he likely to come? Mr Murphy: I am not averse to the Committee calling any of those witnesses or taking the time that it needs. However, the devolution of policing and justice involves deciding on modalities, the powers that members would like transferred, time frames, types of departmental models and so on. We know what policing and justice powers currently rest with the NIO and Whitehall — all we have to do is get a list. The parties will have to agree on the type of model. It will not be handed down to us from the NIO as this virtual Hain Assembly was. As I said, I am not averse to calling witnesses, but we can resolve many of the issues ourselves. Given that Hansard records all our positions and we ensure that we reinforce them for that record, there may a tendency to call witnesses simply to balance previous evidence. I take a more minimalist approach to calling witnesses unless there is a very clear and compelling case to hear evidence. Much of the first element of work on devolution matters that we have agreed to undertake involves matters that parties have been discussing for several years; within their own party, with other parties and certainly with both Governments. The institutional section of this Committee has decided not to call any witness because the parties can deal with those matters themselves. That approach may be more conducive to getting business done quickly than the economic subgroup’s approach. The Chairman (Mr Wells): From a procedural point of view, if folk want to discuss any particularly sensitive issues, the Committee can at any stage — by consensus — decide to have sessions without Hansard. Mr Murphy: My point is that members feel obliged to take their party’s perspective, and I understand that. For instance, Arlene Foster felt obliged to say that the DUP’s priority was rule of law, and, from the DUP’s perspective, that is fair enough. I refer to Hansard because it is inevitable that if a witness is called there will be a need to balance their evidence by calling a counter-witness to give an alternative or contrary view. Therefore as far as some of these topics are concerned, we should think long and hard about the need to call witnesses at all. 11.30 am Mr Weir: Some subject matters lend themselves more to the calling of witnesses than others. We should call witnesses on the basis of real need. As with almost any subject, one could call witnesses for meetings once a week from now until Christmas 2008, but it is questionable how productive that would be. Witnesses should only be called where it will be of benefit. Representatives from the police should be invited to give evidence at some stage, and to get the best use out of witnesses they should not be tied down to one subject. Someone from the police, for instance, might not want to be drawn on the devolution of policing and justice, because it is such a political issue, but they would have things to say on policing and intelligence. They might also be questioned on community restorative justice and certain aspects of rule of law. There is no point in having a police representative here one week to talk on a subject and then another representative two or three weeks later to talk about something else. We must use our time constructively. I am not convinced that getting a witness from the NIO would be helpful when discussing the devolution of policing and justice, because they would merely give a technical list of the aspects that they regard as being covered under policing and justice. I suspect that they are trained not to answer particular questions — like in a police cell in Castlereagh or some other organisations. The NIO will fit in with whatever agreement is reached on the modality, timing and circumstances. It will take a neutral position and throw it back to the parties. In ways the NIO is right to do that, because these things should not be imposed over our heads. Therefore, there would be no benefit in getting witnesses from the NIO, apart from getting a technical list to make sure that we are covering all aspects of policing and justice. I am keeping an open mind that someone will suggest a suitable witness for discussions on devolution of policing and justice; I cannot think of anyone. It would be useful if someone could come up with a relevant witness, but it is a matter for the parties. Mr Murphy: There is also the option of asking for written papers and submissions. Mr McFarland: We have our list, so I suggest that we start and see how we go on this. If we hit blockages of information, we may need to call witnesses. However, we should get going on it. The police might be useful witnesses towards the end, because we might build up the odd question here and there. As Peter Weir suggested, we could do a wrap-up of some questions to the police on areas that we are not sure about and on which we need further information. We should start off and see what witnesses we need as we go along. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There are expert witnesses who are not directly involved. John Simpson spoke at yesterday’s economic subgroup meeting, and he produced some excellent ideas and novel views that stimulated the subgroup’s thinking. The Committee on the Preparation for Government could go down that route as well as asking for the real players. Agreement must be reached because of the modalities of what we are doing. Letters to potential witnesses would have to go out today to give them adequate warning. Would it be useful if the Clerk gave you a briefing paper on the NIO devolution document? Members indicated assent. If we do not reach consensus on witnesses, we will not have any. However, no one is dying in the ditch on this either way. I can hear various views being espoused. Mr Attwood: I agree with the last two members who spoke. I do not think there is any need for witness evidence on the devolution of policing and justice. There are probably questions that need to be raised with the NIO arising from the consultation document because, while it is a fairly neutral document, it does have a few dark corners. As for the other three categories, from my party’s point of view, we might have to call three witnesses: someone from the police to discuss relevant matters; the Secretary of State, to discuss the global policing issue; and perhaps an official to talk about justice and CRJ concerns. It will be a small number — that is the best way to go. However, for the purposes of next week and the immediate work programme, we can proceed without witnesses. The Chairman (Mr Wells): You would not call the IMC or the intelligence services? Mr Attwood: I would like to see someone from the intelligence services, but I do not see the need for any more than three or four witnesses in total. Mr McFarland: The parties have met the IMC at various stages. We would get no more from the IMC than the contents of its most recent report. The police are currently preparing their report on normalisation for publication at the end of August. We will probably get nothing new from the police until they have told the IMC and the IMC has produced its next report at the beginning of September. There is an issue there about what useful new information we are likely to get from these organisations. We have three meetings in which to sort this out before the end of August. We got an agreement from last Monday’s meeting that we could work into the first week of August, so we are asking the Secretary of State to put the first debate back to 11 September. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will be coming back to that later. Mr McFarland: So we have time, but there is not a great deal of it and some of these issues, particularly devolution and policing and justice, are potentially complicated. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will not need witnesses next week, but just to give staff some guidance, Alex has suggested a small core group of witnesses. There does not seem to be much enthusiasm for calling in the Police Ombudsman or the IMC. It would be interesting to see whether the Secretary of State would come if we invited him. We need to tie up these loose ends. Mr McFarland: Should we not call someone from the police so that, towards the end of the week, we can wrap up questions that have arisen? We might get something from Assistant Chief Constable Sheridan, for example, or indeed, the Chief Constable himself, if there were policing issues of concern. Perhaps we should warn them now that we might want to speak to them. The question is whether they would be willing to come. Mr Murphy: In relation to issues such as CRJ, my party would reserve the right to make further suggestions depending on which witnesses the Committee agrees to call. That is why I would have argued for a minimalist approach. We must think long and hard about what value can be added, but we will reserve the right to look at the witnesses that have been called and determine whether we wish to call others ourselves. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Issues may develop in such a way as to make that apparent. Mr Cobain: As far as witnesses are concerned, the devolution of policing and justice is really a matter for the parties. We have skirted around this for long enough, and there is no added value in bringing individuals in to talk about policing. It is for the parties to agree, and the Secretary of State will play it with a straight bat when he comes anyway, so it is a waste of time. As far as CRJ is concerned, all of the protocols are in the public domain. If the Committee wants to produce a report on CRJ, all of the information is accessible. Conor Murphy is right. If we bring one witness in we will have to balance that with another. It is a matter for the Committee if it can reach a consensus on CRJ to make a report. We cannot get involved in bringing one witness from one side and one from another. If the Committee has a view on community restorative justice then it should make that view known. These are important issues. We could produce a report that would go some way to assisting the debate on the issues, but the time frame will not allow us to have a stream of witnesses. However, if a report is produced with which some parties are uncomfortable, they will naturally want to redress the balance by questioning witnesses. There is a great deal of information in the public domain, so the Committee can make pronouncements on those issues. Who needs witnesses about CRJ? All the issues are in the public domain, and members are au fait with CRJ. I cannot imagine how inviting witnesses to talk about CRJ would enlighten the UUP’s view on it. Mr Attwood: I will think about that, because it is a valid point. We have been around the houses on that issue and others. Even though our overall work programme is heavy, it is critical to the Committee’s understanding of the issues to call the Chief Constable, the Secretary of State and a representative from MI5 as witnesses. Mrs Long: They may be key players in the implementation of decisions or agreements, but to call them as witnesses may not shed any light on our discussions. We need to strike a balance. There was a kernel of an idea that the Committee does not need to call witnesses, but, if questions arise, we may need to seek expert advice in future. We would be better to proceed as best we can, on the understanding that we reserve the right to re-open the issue about witnesses if expertise is needed to guide and inform our discussions. At this stage, no one has identified any witnesses for at least one session, possibly two, and it would be a waste of time to invite them for the sake of it. Mrs Foster: I am also conscious of the time frame, for more than one reason. If we proceed on the basis that we do not intend to call witnesses — with one exception, and that is the Secretary of State, because of what he said in Glenties in County Donegal about policing — we need clarification on that point, and that would not take long. If experts could provide written evidence to the Committee, that would short-circuit the process. Other members have also suggested that. However, we need to speak to the Secretary of State about what he said. I presume that he is going on holiday at some stage. Mr Weir: There would be an opportunity for him to be flown back at vast public expense. We need to question the Secretary of State on what he said. One advantage of adopting a flexible approach, which is not to depend on witnesses at this stage, but to consider where they are needed, is that — with the possible exception of the Secretary of State — we may be able to identify individuals. However, almost all the potential witnesses represent institutions or bodies. They do not tend to be individuals; for example, they may be representatives from the police or the IMC. Other Committees try to focus on a couple of individuals, but the advantage of adopting a flexible approach is that, if the Committee decided that it would be useful to invite someone from the police in a fortnight’s time, we would not be tied to a specific individual. The bodies concerned should be able to provide senior representatives at short notice, if necessary. That is what gives us a degree of flexibility, unlike the economic subgroup, which has a range of individuals and is a much smaller organisation in that regard. I support Arlene’s comments. The Committee has had enough lectures from the Secretary of State over the past few months, and it would be nice to be able to question him. We would all appreciate that. 11.45 am The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have different ideas floating around. We have Mrs Long’s view that we do not call witnesses unless something materialises during our discussions that we feel requires us to take evidence. We have the DUP’s view that we do not call anyone other than the Secretary of State to answer questions, particularly in relation to his Glenties speech. Mr Weir: We are not precluding other witnesses. Apart from asking the Secretary of State to attend, our view is similar to Mrs Long’s. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There is also Alex Attwood’s view that we should call a very select number of witnesses — maybe two or three — including ones from the intelligence services. Mr Attwood: You can reconcile those positions. You can decide on the Secretary of State now, and keep a small number of witnesses under review. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We are in danger of having seven agreements in a row at one meeting, which would be an astonishing achievement. Is there consensus to call the Secretary of State to answer questions on policing issues and then, taking up Mrs Long’s proposal, if any other issues arise to call witnesses as and when we need them by consensus? Do we have agreement on that? Mr Murphy: I am OK with that. However, Sinn Féin reserves the right to review matters when the other witnesses are known. Flexibility is important. I am not confident that the Secretary of State will agree to come along. The Chairman (Mr Wells): You could well be right. It is important to understand that the Committee will ask the Secretary of State to come along, today fortnight, to answer questions on general policing issues — not on the devolution of policing and justice. That gives us two weeks to fly him home from wherever he is. Mr Weir: If the Secretary of State does come, the Committee may not get an enormous amount out of him if he is pushed on the devolution of policing and justice. However, I would not preclude particular questions. The general topic will be law and order issues. I do not think we should say to the Secretary of State that he would not be questioned on particular issues. The Chairman (Mr Wells): If the Committee managed to get the Secretary of State to attend next week’s meeting, as opposed to today fortnight, would that cause any difficulties? Of course, we do not know what his diary is like. Mr Weir: I think that he is away. Mr McFarland: I have two problems: first, if he comes next week, we can write off the session, because we will not get into the devolution of policing and justice issue until the following week; secondly, he may decide, given his previous dealings with the Committee, that he is not the best person to come and speak to us and produce one of his officials. Is the issue to get information out of the Secretary of State, in which case the official can give it and that will be OK, or is it to have a go at the Secretary of State? Will we be happy with an official if the Secretary of State does not want to come? The Committee must get a head start on its business. It should start with the key issue next week, even if it all falls apart two weeks later. The Committee may need to talk to the Secretary of State, but that should be done at a later stage rather than have it interfere with its work up front. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is a useful comment. Mr Weir: I agree in part with what Alan McFarland has said. It would be foolish to ask the Secretary of State to attend next week’s meeting. Some work needs to be done before then. Also, I suspect that he is on holiday. The Committee should hold out for someone at a political level. I would not be happy to be palmed off with an official. The Committee wants to know the Government’s direction on policing. An official may reflect the official line, but we would get a lot more depth from the Secretary of State. I would accept Paul Goggins, in his role of Security Minister, as a replacement for the Secretary of State, but I would certainly not be happy with an NIO official. I want to question the Secretary of State on the remarks that he made about policing and justice and law and order in his Glenties speech and on other occasions. It is important to hear the Government line, and that must come from a politician rather than from an NIO official reiterating what the Secretary of State has said. I want the Secretary of State to be properly questioned. There is no value in the Committee being offered an official from the NIO as a replacement witness. Mr McFarland: Is that essentially related to CRJ? The Chairman (Mr Wells): No; it relates to the general policing issue. Mr McFarland: An earlier statement related to the rule of law and the operation of parallel policing systems. The Chairman (Mr Wells): On Wednesday week we will ask to hear from the Secretary of State. We can then request any further witnesses that we deem necessary as the discussions develop. May I put that to the meeting? Mr Murphy: A way round that may be for the Clerks to write to the Secretary of State telling him that the Committee is dealing with certain issues and that it is interested in hearing his views. They could ask whether he is willing to come and, if so, when he is available. If the Secretary of State comes before the Committee, there will be a range of questions for him on every topic; his evidence would not fit neatly into one single-issue discussion. I suspect that he may not be willing to appear before the Committee, but it may be better to ascertain that rather than try to slot him into our agreed work programme. If the Secretary of State agrees to come, the Committee may decide to take the time to engage in discussion with him. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is everyone happy? For the seventh time in a row, I was about to say that we have consensus, but perhaps not. Mr Cobain: I do not mind witnesses attending meetings of this Committee, provided that they have something to add to the discussion. I thought that this Committee was working towards the devolution of policing and justice. At the end of the day, irrespective of what the Secretary of State may say, that will only happen if this Committee is happy with it. If the Secretary of State is brought to this Committee, people will want to make political points about his recent speech. I do not know how that would add to the work of the Committee. I am becoming lost in all this. His statement about whether people are bound into the constitutional issue has obviously antagonised some people, but what has that to do with the work of the Committee? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Murphy and others made the point that the Secretary of State would not be questioned solely about his Glenties contribution and that other issues would be raised. Mr Cobain: Such as? Mr Murphy: I am not jumping out of my skin to have the Secretary of State as a witness, as I think that it would lead to a political discussion, although some members think that his coming here would help in the overall generic discussion on policing and justice. However, his availability or otherwise should not interfere with this Committee’s work programme. If he is available to come at a certain time and members want to quiz him on a range of issues, that is well and good. We should make a start on the programme of work — whether the Secretary of State comes or not could be a distraction to that. If the Secretary of State indicates a willingness to come — and I will be surprised if he does — we should slot him in whenever we can and members can ask him whatever they want. Mr Weir: We should have an opportunity to question the Secretary of State on a range of issues. We all know that just about any issue involving law and order or policing will have some political overtone. Even if there is consensus on a particular issue, there will be political overtones. Politics will be behind just about everything that is discussed in this Committee. We cannot get away from that. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Cobain, I thought that we had reached consensus. Will you oppose that? Mr Cobain: No. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Secretary of State may not come, so time may not be an issue. Mr Cobain: My concern relates to the principal task of this Committee and to the fact that it is time-bound. The issues are on the table, and the arguments of all parties have been well rehearsed. To reiterate: it is my view that very few witnesses could add to the discussions on these issues. I am concerned that if a witness were to appear before the Committee, there would be political toing and froing, but members would get little out of it. Mrs Foster: For the record, Chair, the Glenties speech was ground-breaking in so far as the Secretary of State had moved away completely from anything he had said previously. He spoke about the dichotomy between support for the institutional arrangements for policing and support for practical policing on the ground. We wanted to clarify that issue with him, which is why I feel strongly that we should invite him to appear before the Committee. Members may wish to raise other issues. He may not come to the Committee, but we should still invite him. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We are agreed that we should write to the Secretary of State and ask him when he is available. We are not wedded to Wednesday 16 August; we will have to meet his diary commitments and slot him in on another date. We have reached consensus on that issue, and now strikes me as being a suitable stopping point. “Quit when you are ahead” is the phrase that is going through my mind. Are members content that we call it a day on the substantive business? There are a couple of practical issues. We agreed that the economic subgroup would have five Chairpersons. The Committee Clerks wrote to the Secretary of State, who has now written to the parties. The Ulster Unionist Party has been very diligent; it has nominated Jim Wilson as its representative to chair the economic subgroup. It would be very helpful to Mr Molloy and me if we could adopt Mr Wilson almost immediately into our work programme. Have the Alliance Party and the SDLP given any thought to their nominations? Mrs Foster: We will have to come back to you on the nominations issue. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Unfortunately, as far as the DUP is concerned, you are stuck with me. Mrs Foster: As I said, we will have to come back to you on that. [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Wells): Has the SDLP communicated with the Secretary of State? Mr Attwood: I do not know. We will get an answer to him by close of business today. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Has the Alliance Party communicated with the Secretary of State? Mr Ford: I am not aware of having yet received a communication from the Secretary of State. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The letter was dated 1 August and was addressed to: Mr Ford, Alliance Party of Northern Ireland, 88 University Street. Mr Weir: In Mr Ford’s defence, and from our party’s experience with the Speaker’s Advisory Group, letters about wind-up arrangements sent out under the Secretary of State’s name were not received by many DUP Members. Certain items seem to get lost in the post, and perhaps Mr Ford’s letter has gone walkabout. Mr Ford: I anticipated this situation and am happy to confirm that, in the democratic structures of the Alliance Party Assembly group, we agreed yesterday to nominate Naomi Long. I will formally communicate that nomination in writing before I leave the Building today. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am sure that the SDLP is dealing with this important issue as we speak. Can we factor those names into the work programme? The Preparation for Government Committee meets on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, which is quite a commitment for Mr Molloy and me. It would help us enormously to have all five Chairpersons working in rotation. I am here every day this week because of commitments to this work. At yesterday’s meeting of the economic subgroup, we agreed that I would write to myself — given that I chair this Committee and the subgroup — asking for an extension. The economic subgroup faces a huge workload. We have called many witnesses from the public and private sectors. There have been some excellent presentations and some very useful discussions between members and witnesses. Things are moving along very well in that subgroup, but we are having difficulty with timetabling, so I have written to the Committee to ask for an extension until 25 August. That will create a knock-on effect, and we may need to revisit the matter of plenary meetings. Do members feel that it is reasonable to give the subgroup an extra week? 12.00 noon Mr Ford: As someone who has sat on that subgroup, I believe that it is entirely reasonable to allow an additional week for its work to be done properly. As you say, that will have a knock-on effect on plenary meetings. It would be logical at this stage for this Committee to recommend to the Speaker and to the Business Committee that we delay the first plenary meeting in September by a week. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have already contacted the Secretary of State on this issue. We have had no response, and this is all predicated on his agreement. If he does not agree to that, we shall have great problems. Mr McFarland: We have had our ears bent all summer about the importance of sending business from this Committee to plenary meetings. The Secretary of State had pencilled in 4, 5, 11 and 12 September for those meetings. Logically, we asked on Monday of last week that he give us an extra week, so that the plenary meetings start on 11 September. That seems sensible, given that we did not get started as quickly as we had hoped. That ties into the subgroup’s business. I cannot see how that should be a problem; I would be very surprised if it were. We should get neuralgic if that is a problem. The Chairman (Mr Wells): On principle, are members agreed that we ask for that extension, and that we write to the economic subgroup? Mr Murphy: Write to yourself? The Chairman (Mr Wells): No, we would write to Mr Molloy on this occasion — he is chairing tomorrow’s meeting — to say that that has been agreed. We would then have to wait for the Secretary of State’s decision on plenary business. Are there any other issues? Mr McFarland: Given that we are now starting our proper business, may I suggest — as was agreed during Monday’s meeting on institutional matters — that we meet all day on each of our allotted days next week? The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is exactly what I was about to propose. It is very good that that came from the floor, rather than as a diktat from the Chairman. This could be our ninth area of consensus, which may be a record. Can we agree to meet all day next Wednesday, with lunch provided in the middle of the day to enable members to continue, perhaps finishing at 4.00 pm or 4.30 pm? That is a council night for many members who are councillors. Mr Weir: Speak for yourself. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The first Monday of the month is normally our council night. Dolores, does that present a problem for you? Mrs D Kelly: No. I have another point. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Can we reach agreement on this? Mr Ford: As I plan to be on holiday next week, I am very happy to give consent to the rest of you working late. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am sure that Mr McCarthy, or whoever it is, will be delighted with an all-day sitting. Are we agreed that Wednesday will be a full day? Members indicated assent. Mrs D Kelly: Mr Chairman, you mentioned at the outset that each party would today be asked to give only a short oral presentation. However, you then said that papers would follow in relation to party positions on the issues. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I thought that the request for papers was aimed at outside bodies. However, that is an interesting point. Should we look at that matter? Mr McFarland: It was originally intended that each party — for each meeting on Monday, Wednesday and Friday — would produce a paper to which they would speak. On Monday, some parties did that, and some did not. However, we agreed that parties were going over exactly the same ground as they covered a month ago. If there was something new that a party wished to add to the mix, they could produce a paper on it, but otherwise, we agreed to get on with our business. That is what we did this morning. Technically, we had been asked to produce papers for today. On Monday, most members agreed to dispense with that and to go straight into our discussions. Most of the issues raised by most of the parties are in the Hansard reports of a month and a half ago. Obviously, we will discuss those matters in turn in more detail as we go through next week. Therefore, I do not see the need for papers. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mrs Kelly has raised an issue. We have skirted around the question of whether we call for papers from outside bodies on policing and justice. I cannot recall our tying down a decision on that. Mr Murphy: When we discussed witnesses, we said that there was the option to call for papers, rather than call for people to appear before us. We should apply the same broad flexibility that we have applied to calling witnesses: as our discussions progress, if we feel that somebody should appear before the Committee or that somebody should provide us with a paper, we will agree on that. Mr McFarland: Most of the issues that we are about to discuss are well documented; we have been at them for some years. The Government have an entire discussion paper on devolving policing and justice, and that, presumably, is our starting point. We have asked Committee staff to prepare a briefing paper on their analysis of that paper. As Conor says, we may need to call on extra advice as we go on, and that advice can be in written form or in the form of oral evidence. We can deal with that matter when it arises. Mrs D Kelly: Two separate points were raised, one of which was to do with witnesses. My point, however, concerned party positions on the different issues that were outlined and put before us today. We understood that a paper would be required from each party. Those papers would be succinct, but at least they would reveal parties’ common understandings and show how easily agreement could be reached. As a result, some success could be made of this Committee. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have decided not to do that. The DUP produced a paper, but nobody else did. Mrs D Kelly: We have produced a paper. Mr Attwood: We have produced a paper, which, subject to some correcting for accuracy, we shall circulate. You never know, it might inform people. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That decision is voluntary. The next meeting of the Committee will take place on Friday, and it will deal with safeguards, equality issues, rights and victims. There will probably be different personnel in attendance, but our next meeting will be at 10.00 am on Friday. Adjourned at 12.06 pm. |