COMMITTEE ON THE Tuesday 29 August 2006 Members in attendance for all or part of proceedings: The Committee met in private from 10.07 am to 11.56 am. The Committee met in open session from 11.57 am. (The Chairman (Mr Molloy) in the Chair.) The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are members content with the draft minutes of the meeting of 21 August? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We agreed at the meeting of 21 August to refer the issue of whether firearms and explosives licensing is a justice matter or a public-safety matter to the Committee on the Preparation for Government (PFG) dealing with law and order issues. It has decided that it is a matter of public safety. Are members content with that? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Mr McGimpsey requested information about the role of the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) in relation to the North/South implementation bodies. Are members content with the information that has been provided? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We now move on to strand three issues. We will go around the parties in the usual way. The Alliance Party will go first. Mr Ford: Sorry, you are moving slightly too fast for me. May I have permission to draw breath first? When we were discussing the wider issues of strand two last week, I mentioned that there is a need to recognise the role of the British-Irish Council (BIC) at a higher level than at present. We have already covered the issue of a permanent secretariat for the BIC, but that was not noted. The current workings of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body (BIIPB) have some value, specifically the fact that members of this Assembly are represented on the body, although, unfortunately, not all parties choose to attend. My party does not see anything particular that needs to be added to strand three, other than that work that could be done has not yet been done. However, that will be a matter for the institutions to get on with when devolution is restored. Mr P Robinson: As might be expected, there is not one bullet point under strand three that we have not touched on when dealing with all the other issues. In general, the DUP’s view is that there should be an overarching British-Irish isles council. All the relationships, whether they be North/South or east-west — either between the Northern Ireland Assembly and Westminster or between the Government of the Irish Republic and Her Majesty’s Government — are set within a British-Irish context. Therefore, the overarching body should be a British Isles council, and all the separate relationships can easily take place therein. 12.00 noon That being the case, the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference (BIIC), which is, I think, really the successor to the one that came out of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, could comfortably sit within a British Isles council. My party has said in policy documents that the BIIPB is something that we will look at in the context of an overall settlement, although we would prefer that, instead of its present format, it were more akin to parliamentary bodies for which there is an open invitation to attend, rather than an invitation for the select and appointed few. The DUP has been unhappy about the disproportionate number of meetings that have taken place on a North/South axis as opposed to an east-west axis. There must be greater emphasis on the east-west institutions. As unionists, not unnaturally we want to have a close relationship with the rest of the UK, and we believe that that can be done through empowering the east-west relationship. We feel that one way in which to do that is to have a secretariat that will drive the east-west relationship in the same way in which a secretariat is driving the North/South relationship. We need to have that balance. I repeat — not as a threat but as a matter of fact — that the DUP’s enthusiasm for the North/South structures will be commensurate with other parties’ enthusiasm for east-west structures. People cannot say to us that they want to have structures in place that recognise their identity, only to ignore the identity of others. The structures must be in tandem, so the east-west relationship must go up the pecking order from where it has previously been. I do not think that I need to say anything more at this stage, but if anything comes up in the discussions, I will. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I remind members to switch off their mobile phones in case they interfere with the Hansard recording. Mr Murphy: Sinn Féin views the strand three issues in a similar way to the others, in that they are a catch-all. We are quite content to discuss any of the issues with parties, and there are none that we consider to be an obstacle to the return of the institutions. If there are issues around the effective functioning of the BIC, for instance, an incoming Executive can deal with them in conjunction with the other members of the BIC. The proposal for a council of the Isles is one that we are quite happy to discuss. I must say, however, that there is no meat on the bones of that proposal, and no real reference has been made to the BIC’s role in a council of the Isles. The BIC already involves Scotland, Wales, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the Dáil, as well as the Assembly. We operated the east-west agenda in good faith while the Executive were functioning; we have no difficulty with doing so. There are proposals to enhance the BIC’s secretariat. There seems to be a suggestion that it should match the North/South Ministerial Council’s (NSMC) secretariat. It should match the NSMC’s secretariat if the level of activity merits it. We will have to see what propositions there are for east-west activities. We have always operated the east-west agenda in good faith, and we do not have an issue with continuing to do so in an Executive. We are happy to consider suggestions on any of those issues, but we have not seen substantive proposals on them. Dr Farren: We have covered so much of this already that I feel that I am repeating myself in order to stress several points. It is obvious that a broad approach must be taken to strand three, and it is essential that issues therein be developed. The range of institutions that exist to develop them is appropriate. The requirement to have the BIIC arises out of the need for the two sovereign Governments to consider their particular and exclusive responsibilities in the manner that their sovereignty demands. Therefore I cannot imagine why the BIIC should not persist. The BIIPB has functioned effectively. That performance would, however, be enhanced if all parties that are entitled to seats on it would take their places and play a constructive role. The body has done a great deal to strengthen parliamentary relationships. It has involved people in intense discussions on a range of pertinent issues. Members value the opportunity to strengthen personal relationships and understandings, and they can achieve that through the BIIPB’s agenda. The DUP has made a case for an all-encompassing council of the Isles. However, I do not believe that that case stands up. Relationships within Ireland are of a particular quality and, indeed, immediacy that require the administration of the free-standing North/South Ministerial Council. Certainly, at present, I do not see a strong argument for the all-encompassing approach that Peter has just articulated. Colleagues will be aware that the BIC has continued its activities despite the suspension of the Assembly. Suspension has not prevented the council from meeting to address a wide range of issues. In the event of devolution, the case can be made to strengthen, through a secretariat, the support systems that the BIC requires. I have no difficulty with that. The kinds of issues that the council deals with need much consideration. Most people would agree that those issues have been wide-ranging and pertinent. A key concern is to ensure that the council’s recommendations are taken into account by those in the Executive who have direct responsibility for their implementation. The council has considerable potential to address issues that are common across these islands and to do a great deal to strengthen relationships between representatives of the various institutions. Mr McFarland: The BIIC is a mechanism that operates between the two Governments. Were the Assembly up and running, Ministers would attend the conference whenever it was pertinent to do so. However, its latest report is slightly worrying. As my party has said outside this Committee, the conference has agreed an additional raft of “North/Southery”. There is a danger that, if left unadvised, the two Governments could crash ahead on issues on which the Northern Ireland parties should be consulted. However, in the end, if the conference is working properly, that is a matter between the two Governments. The BIIPB has never really got up and running. The current body has set numbers of representatives from Westminster and Dublin. The logic behind it is fairly sensible in that people from each Parliament discuss mutual interests. We have refused to participate in it — in fact, the Committee for Regional Development was unable to meet with it during the first Assembly. As the body had its genesis in the Anglo-Irish Agreement, we felt unable to join it. It would take very little to modify the existing BIIPB’s practices and membership to transform it into a body in which parliamentarians from Scotland, Wales, the Assembly, the Dáil and Westminster could have a proper, sensible relationship. That seems to be quite a sensible idea. That is set out in the comprehensive agreement, so presumably the DUP and Sinn Féin have agreed that framework. A council of the Isles is an interesting idea. We would probably need a bit more detail as to how it would work, because it would demand a level of activity that is additional to that that was set out in the Belfast Agreement. The BIC was the poor relation. The “North/Southery” cracked on, but the east-west mechanism did not get anywhere because it did not have a secretariat. We have maintained for some years — again it is interesting to see that Sinn Féin and the DUP agreed with this in the comprehensive agreement — that a proper secretariat should be set up for the BIC. Mr P Robinson: A council of the British Isles — or a council of the Isles, I suppose, depending on which side of the room one is sitting — would not be an additional structure. It would be the overarching body within which all the structures would operate, and it would provide some context to the overall relationships. It would not be a substitute for the North/South relationship. Seán was concerned that he did not see what the British-Irish Council’s role would be. He said that the North/South relationship has a particular importance and immediacy. As a nationalist, he would say that; as a unionist, I would say that the relationship with the rest of the UK has a greater importance and immediacy. I recognise all those relationships, but they are all contained within that overall axis of the British Isles. That includes the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Each of the component parts can meet as necessary within that overall context and have its own operations, but the overall context unites all the identifies to which we have referred. None is excluded from that overall British Isles context. Accountability is required in the east-west structures. That common thread, which has run through our discussions on devolution issues and the North/South structures, is also important for the east-west relationship. I hope that, if we consider it in a Northern Ireland Assembly context, it will remain addressed for all the other structures, but I am pointing out that that context does not currently exist. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do members have any other comments or proposals to make? 12.15 pm Mr P Robinson: I propose that further consideration be given to an overarching British Isles council. Mr P J Bradley: Or Celtic Isles. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Could we have consensus on a name? Dr Farren: If I proposed calling it comhairle na n-Oileán, would that be acceptable? Mr P Robinson: Is that the Ulster Scots for it? Mr Murphy: We are happy to consider any proposal. A vague notion of one has been floated. That the DUP is engaged in, or has fixed on, the creation of another body to oversee activities is somewhat at odds with the drive for efficiency. There is no clear proposal on how the proposed new body would operate, or on how the other bodies would relate to its membership or make-up. Sinn Féin is happy to look at proposals for an overarching council, whatever its name. That might be another day’s debate. The operation, make-up and relationship between the proposed new body and the existing institutional arrangements under the Good Friday Agreement might be a more substantial argument than the name that would be given to it. Mr Ford: There are issues in strand three that have never been addressed in detail. However, as his party is floating the idea most strongly, if Peter Robinson is proposing that an overarching council be given further consideration, he should follow up that proposal with some more ideas. I sense that a document may be thrust upon us. The proposal should be given further consideration, but if the DUP has further proposals, could those proposals not be more specific? If the DUP is not willing to put forward further proposals now, it should do so soon in order that they can be considered. Mr P Robinson: That is work for our researchers. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do we have consensus on the proposal? Mr Murphy: What was it again? Mr P Robinson: That further consideration be given to the overarching British Isles council. Mr Ford: The bullet point on the agenda says, “Council of the Isles”, which would avoid some of the difficulties that might arise. Dr Farren: It is all in the phraseology. Mr Ford: You put it in Irish. Mr P Robinson: The bullet point says, “New Council of the Isles”. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do members agree? Dr Farren: The proposal, if accepted, would involve many other institutions. Should the Committee not advise them of the proposal and ask for their views? They would also need to know what our ideas are. The Committee should flesh out what it has been discussing. Mr P Robinson: I suppose that we could argue that the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands should be consulted. Dr Farren: All the institutions should be asked. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I attended a meeting at which some of the other islands did not see the relevance of their being involved, so there is debate about the participation of the different islands. Mr Maskey: I am not clear what we are being asked to support. As Conor Murphy said, we are always happy to discuss any serious proposal, but there is no proposal in front of us. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Peter Robinson made a proposal. Mr Maskey: Which is? Mr P Robinson: That further consideration be given to a new council of the Isles. Mr Maskey: That is very vague. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Is there consensus? Dr Farren: Who will make the proposal? Mr P Robinson: We had consensus, but we have talked ourselves out of it. Dr Farren: Yes, we will talk ourselves out of it if we are not careful. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The proposal is that further consideration be given to a new council of the Isles. Mr Murphy: I suppose that the proposal could be that further consideration be given to any proposition that a new council of the Islands be established. As it stands, the proposal gives the impression that there is some agreement that a new council of the Islands would be a good thing. Although we are happy to consider any proposal, we are not necessarily sold on that idea. Seán Farren expressed a similar view, so there is much to be discussed. However, we are happy to consider any proposals concerning a new council of the Islands. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are we happy enough to add that wording to the proposal? Mr P Robinson: I am not going to get tied up in that. I do not think that that wording does any violence to anybody else’s position. It just provides an overall context. We simply put a proposal forward, and others can do so as well. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Is there consensus on the proposal as amended? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do members have any other business on strand three matters? The PFG Committee dealing with institutional issues will meet again on Monday 4 September. Each party will present a paper on a draft ministerial code. Will any party that has not already submitted a paper please do so by Friday. The Committee Clerk: The parties were to produce a paper on what they consider to be the essential elements for the ministerial code, so that the Committee staff could try to draw together any consensus among the parties. Mr Murphy: Correct me if I am wrong, but were we not to try to access the existing draft that had been put to the Executive? The Committee Clerk: Yes, we issued that last week. Mr Murphy: Sorry; I have been away. Mr McFarland: Are we being asked to comment on the draft that we had last week? That draft seemed to be quite sensible? There is enormous encouragement for people to produce endless party papers. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): It is not absolutely necessary to produce a paper. Mr McFarland: How about we comment on and discuss the matter rather than prepare a report? Mr P Robinson: This is not a new proposal. It was agreed at last Monday’s meeting. Mr McFarland: That parties would produce papers on it? Mr P Robinson: Yes. Dr Farren: If parties wished to do so. Mr McFarland: That is fine. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): A draft is already in circulation. The Subgroup on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland’s report will also be discussed next Monday. Will members submit any amendments to the Committee Clerk as soon as possible so that they can be circulated before Friday? Mr McFarland: Did you say amendments to the subgroup’s report? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Members can submit proposed recommendations or observations on the subgroup’s report, which we discussed this morning. Mr McFarland: Chairman, the subgroup unanimously agreed its report. The amendments that we looked at were confusions in that whoever drafted it did not use normal drafting English. Some of the sentences are not full sentences, and others that purport to be recommendations are not. The Committee staff can run through those and chat to each other, provided that they bring back the report for the Committee to examine. To encourage people to propose amendments is dangerous because the subgroup produced the report; it is a different matter to say that the PFG Committee can amend it. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): As was pointed out this morning, the report has now become this Committee’s report. The subgroup produced the report for this Committee, so this Committee can amend it. However, I am not encouraging members to make amendments. Mr McFarland: Yes, but that would be to gainsay the wisdom of our colleagues who sat on that subgroup for weeks. It is for those colleagues to amend it. It would be dangerous for the Committee to open up the debate on the body of the report. If we are messing with English and changing around recommendations, that is absolutely fine. However, to do otherwise would require amendments to be made. In that case, the report would surely have to back to the subgroup, would it not? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): No, because it is now this Committee’s report. Mr McFarland: OK. Mr P Robinson: I agree with Alan; I would like the subgroup’s unanimously agreed report to go forward. Mr McFarland: With the English amended. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Let us not reopen that debate. We can deal with it on Monday. Adjourned at 12.25 pm. |