COMMITTEE ON THE Wednesday 30 August 2006 Members in attendance for all or part of proceedings: Witness: The Committee met at 10.07 am. (The Chairman (Mr Molloy) in the Chair.) The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Please switch off your mobile phones. Do any new members of the Committee have interests to declare on law-and-order issues? Are any members of the Policing Board present? Mrs D Kelly: Alex Attwood is a member of the Policing Board. Mr Kennedy: I am still on the Policing Board. Mr McFarland: Mr Cobain is also a Policing Board member. He will be here shortly to replace Mr McNarry. Mr Ford: I am still on Antrim District Policing Partnership (DPP) — or, at least, I was last night. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are any members deputising for others? Mr Raymond McCartney: I am standing in for Martin McGuinness. Mrs D Kelly: Alban Maginness will join us shortly – he is replacing Mark Durkan. Alex Attwood is replacing Alasdair McDonnell. Mr Ford: Naomi Long is not feeling well this morning, but she may join us later. The Committee Clerk: Ian Paisley Jnr is himself. Sammy Wilson is replacing William McCrea, and Peter Weir is replacing Maurice Morrow. Mr Weir: Shall we swap at half-time? Mr S Wilson: You sing better. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The first item on the agenda is the minutes of the meeting of 23 August 2006. Are members agreed that those accurately reflect the events of that meeting? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The next item on the agenda is matters arising. Members may wish to take a minute or two to read a letter written on behalf of the Committee to the Secretary of State. The NIO reply to that letter has been circulated, and members may also wish to read it. Mr Paisley Jnr: Is the reply the letter that I am holding up? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Yes. Are there any comments at this stage? Mr Paisley Jnr: Is that only half the reply? He has answered only half the letter. Mr Kennedy: He did not exactly go overboard, did he? Mr Paisley Jnr: When is he coming? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): He is on holiday. There is not an awful lot that we can say about it. Mr Paisley Jnr: Should we reply, asking him to refer to the questions that he has not actually answered in the letter? Mr Ford: May I ask Ian Paisley Jnr to explain which questions have not been answered? It seems to me that pretty well nothing that was asked has been answered. Mr Paisley Jnr: You can be pedantic about it if you want. Mr Attwood: There are two matters to consider. The NIO confirms, in the second paragraph of that letter, that it is not in a position to share the developmental work: “on accountability for policing matters that bear on national security.” The paragraph concludes by saying that when that work is completed: “it will of course be shared with the policing oversight bodies.” I trust that the British Government are not changing the rules; in a previous letter, Clare Salters indicated that there was consideration of what should or should not be shared with the Assembly and Assembly Committees or a Minister. By changing the language and referring to the policing oversight bodies, I trust that they are not saying that they will not share information with the Assembly or the relevant Committee or Minister. It is ambiguous, but I am putting down a marker in case the British Government, in this letter, are pulling back from the position that they held in that letter from Clare Salters. Secondly, they have reiterated their position on the post-normalisation powers that are necessary for the armed forces. They say that they cannot give an indicative list but that those powers will include matters such as public order and explosives ordnance. We should pursue that; are they saying that they are concerned only with matters of public order and explosives ordnance, or will other areas be included? Surely they can tell us what those other areas might be. I propose that we ask them to share with us the additional matters that they are considering. If those include matters other than public order and explosives ordnance, they should at least be in a position to share that with us, even if they cannot produce an exhaustive indicative list. I say all that in the context of repeating for those who did not have ears to listen to what I said at last week’s meeting: the SDLP believes there should be no role for the British Army in the North. That is in the Hansard record for last week’s meeting, and I am repeating it now because one or two people around this table did not hear it. Mr Paisley Jnr: We are not putting that in the letter, are we? Mr Attwood: No. Mr Paisley Jnr: Is that your personal view, or your party’s view? Mr Attwood: It is my party’s view. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): OK. The proposal is that we write back looking for clarification on those points. 10.15 am Mr S Wilson: I am at a loss to understand why Mr Attwood is still perturbed. The letter makes it clear. The powers are not all outlined, but they will relate to only two things: the role of the armed forces in public order and explosive ordnance disposal situations. The exact detail of that public order role may yet have to be specified and will be detailed at a later date. I do not read from that letter that there will be additional roles. I do not know why Mr Attwood is getting so exercised. I do not mind that the Army, which is the Army of the country, has been given the job of backing up the civil authorities in Northern Ireland. I have no hang-up about that. If Mr Attwood has a problem with it, he or his party should address it. My concern is that a letter such as that which he asks for implies that the whole Committee is concerned about that. My party is not concerned. Mr A Maginness: The letter states that: “powers will relate specifically to the ongoing armed forces role such as in public order and explosive ordinance disposal situations.” That is not an exhaustive list. The letter implies that other powers might be considered, and we are concerned about those. It would be much more definitive if the letter said that the powers would relate only to the two things mentioned. However, because it is not definitive, there may be other things. We want to query that. Mr McFarland: I bored the Committee to death two weeks ago about the UK system of military aid. Military Aid to the Civil Power (MACP) and Military Aid to the Civil Community (MACC) are the provisions for such aid, and their application throughout the United Kingdom is available for researchers to study. Those provisions are the normal standard. However, the context in which they are applied is a peaceful society in which the Army is used to back up the police in certain instances. We have an ongoing public order problem here. The chances are that the troops who are normally in garrisons here are now in Afghanistan and Iraq, and there is no point in turning their families out to deal with a riot. We are considering what would apply in a normalised society here, the rules for which are laid out in England, Scotland and Wales. A bit of research should dig them up. I presume that we are talking about being the same as the rest of the UK. The Committee Clerk: There is a proposal to write to the Secretary of State, saying that even if he has not compiled an exhaustive list of powers, he could give us a list of what is being considered at present. Mr Paisley Jnr: It was proposed earlier that we write to the Secretary of State to ask him to answer those questions that he did not answer. The first, and obviously the most important question, was raised in the letter of 23 August and asked him to be definitive about when he is coming and whether he would meet our September timetable. That was the issue that most exercised the Committee. Members can put to the Secretary of State — if he comes — the other issues that have been identified. From what I can see those include four matters: national security; his speech at Glenties on 16 July; the powers of the Army; and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We have two proposals, both seeking information. Alex Attwood asked for clarification on the sharing of information with the policing oversight bodies and whether that information would also be available to the Assembly. Do members agree with those proposals? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The next item on the agenda is the consideration of firearms and explosives. The Scottish experience with this matter has been considered, and a letter is being circulated to members. Tim Moore will take the Committee through the paper and the options that are available. Mr T Moore: The original NIO discussion document on policing and justice suggested that the Assembly might want to follow the Scottish model for the devolution of firearms. That was characterised in the discussion document as one in which there was no devolution of prohibited weapons. The general control of other weapons would be a devolved matter. The NIO letter now confirms that that is not so. In Scotland, firearms policy and legislation is a reserved matter, just as it is an excepted matter here. However, certain functions of the Secretary of State have been devolved, and one of those includes the ability to grant a certificate to hold a prohibited weapon. That is the position in Scotland, which has now been clarified by the NIO paper. The Scottish model is set out at 14.4 of Annex A of the NIO letter. Policy and legislation on firearms remain reserved; however, some of the Secretary of State’s Executive functions could be devolved. Paragraph 14.5 comes up with an alternative model. The control of what might be called routine firearms could be devolved to the local Assembly. However, Westminster would retain control of prohibited weapons. A Minister for Justice in Northern Ireland would not be in a position to grant the authority to hold a prohibited weapon. A third option would be to accept part of the Scottish model, which would say that a Minister for Justice would be able to grant authority to hold prohibited weapons and there would be devolution of policy and legislation for what might be called routine firearms. Those are the three broad options that emerge from the paper. I am happy to try to answer any questions that members may have. Mr Paisley Jnr: I see that the licensing of firearms rests with the Chief Constable and authorisation rests with Ministers. Have there been instances of a divergence of opinion between authorisation and licensing, and if so, who has the final say? Mr T Moore: I am researcher and not a legal adviser, but my understanding is that once the Secretary of State grants his authority to hold a prohibited weapon, the Chief Constable cannot go against that. Mr Attwood: You said that there are three options, and you hinted that there could be four or more. A fourth option would be what Clare Salters suggests, or hints at, in the second last paragraph of her letter. Everything could be devolved, but for the time being the Secretary of State’s role in respect of prohibited weapons would continue. The fifth option would be that everything is devolved and the Secretary of State retains no power whatsoever in relation to any weapon. Those are the fourth and fifth options, and the SDLP favours the fifth. However, if the consensus of the Committee were to take Clare Salters’s hint that everything would be devolved, but that, for the time being, the Secretary of State would have a residual role in respect of prohibited weapons, that would be the SDLP’s favoured outcome. Mr McFarland: Is Mr Attwood talking about option two, which would hold back prohibited weapons back for the moment? Mr Attwood: The SDLP agrees in principle that everything would be devolved, except that, for the time being, the Secretary of State’s current role in relation to prohibited weapons would continue. Mr McFarland: Does that refer to option two, with the last element of the function being devolved eventually? Mr Attwood: Is that option two? That alternative goes further than option two. Mr T Moore: The fifth option would be that everything is devolved; nothing is reserved to Westminster. The fourth option, which I think we are talking about at the moment, is that everything would be devolved but that there would be a time lapse before that would happen. Mr McFarland: As I understand it, Alex Attwood is proposing option two, which is that the Secretary of State would hold on to prohibited weapons authorisation, except that it would be modified and the Secretary of State would hold on to prohibited weapons only for the moment. Is it option two, with the last sentence reading “for the moment”? Mr T Moore: The slight difference is that there is a list of prohibited weapons and the Secretary of State can authorise or not whether people can own those weapons. The option that the member suggests is that taking things in and out of that list would also be devolved; that would be the full devolution of firearms. It could be looked at in another way: the list could be determined by Westminster, but the local Minister would determine who could hold the item on the list. That is the distinction between options three and four. Mr McFarland: One of my worries is that hysteria over particular events in England and Scotland has led to the development of a set of illogical firearms regulations. It would be unfortunate if somebody in England ran amok with a shotgun and killed children, and Westminster decided that shotguns were such dangerous weapons that no one should have one. Farmers from both communities here use a substantial number of shotguns. It would be sensible to have some degree of control over what was on a prohibited list. Mr Raymond McCartney: We will argue that everything should be transferred and dealt with locally. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Is that option five, which Mr Attwood was talking about? Mr Raymond McCartney: I think it was option four. Mr Attwood: That was option five. However, for the sake of consent and in light of what Mr McFarland said, we can take that as option four. The old Northern Ireland Parliament had powers over everything, so, if you like, we are going back to the future. If we were to get back to that point, I think that the unionist parties would warmly embrace it. Mr Paisley Jnr: Alex, that nearly sounds convincing. You nearly had us there. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): As was pointed out, option 3 with the words “with the exception of prohibited weapons” removed would cover the same issue. Mr Attwood’s point was that it would give power away. Mr Attwood: That was a very helpful intervention. Mr Paisley Jnr: May I make a suggestion? All five options have implications. Could we take them away and come back to the next meeting with a considered view on which option we prefer? Mr Weir: It might also be helpful if the proposals for options four and five were circulated. Rather than trying to explain them, it is always useful to have them in black and white. Mr Chairman (Mr Molloy): OK. Mr Attwood might like to put that together. Are there any other proposals? The next agenda item deals with the residual justice issues. Several proposals were discussed last week but were not actually put. Mr Attwood: We should just leave them lying on the table. My actual proposal is somewhat different, so I propose to give a more accurate wording to the Committee Clerk so that she can circulate it. 10.30 am The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We are just trying to clear the car park for the benefit of producing the report. The main issue is the rule of law. How does the Committee want to consider those issues? Should we take them all together or overlapping each other, or should we treat them as three separate matters? Mr S Wilson: There is a degree of overlap anyway. One will impinge on the other, so it might be best to take them all in the round. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are members content? Members indicated assent. Mr Ford: I may be taking these items in a different order from how they are listed on the agenda, but if they are overlapping they can overlap. The Alliance Party is largely satisfied that IRA decommissioning was completed under the supervision of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning (IICD). We remain extremely concerned about the lack of significant and meaningful progress on UVF or UDA decommissioning. We are particularly concerned about the UVF’s recent statement that it will retain its weapons until the outcome of the November deadline is known. That is a very sinister threat. We have a number of concerns about paramilitarism in general. Initially, the ceasefires, as allowed by the two Governments, were defined in extremely limited terms. Effectively, they applied only to attacks on the state, economic targets and the so-called “other side”. It appeared that certain paramilitary groups were able to continue their activities as long as they directed them only against those perceived to be from their own section of the community. Consequently, a large number of drug-dealers, suspected drug-dealers and informers were assaulted and murdered, as well as those who were assaulted as part of internal feuds. The concept of an imperfect peace moving forward was perhaps a bit of constructive ambiguity at the time of the Good Friday Agreement and was accepted as such by a number of people. However, that clearly cannot continue to be the case. Since that time, the IRA has been involved in weapon smuggling in Florida, with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), in the Stormontgate spy ring, with the Northern Bank robbery and in the cover-up of the murder of Robert McCartney. Meanwhile, loyalists have been involved in a great deal of ongoing activity. The failure of the authorities to address adequately that continued paramilitary activity and involvement in organised crime has contributed to a perception in the community that there is a moral vacuum at the heart of the implementation of the agreement. The activities in which organisations have been engaged have been downplayed for reasons of political expediency. There is a clear need to address that for once and for all if devolution is to be restored on a stable basis. However, the Governments have made some positive responses to that ongoing problem. Paragraph 13 of the ‘Joint Declaration by the British and Irish Governments’ of April 2003 contained a rather broader and clearer definition of paramilitary activity, including not just military attack and sectarian incidents, but targeting, intelligence-gathering, so-called punishment attacks, riots and the threat of exiling. The establishment of the IMC has been a significant step forward in monitoring paramilitary activity and has given considerable confidence to the community in a way that has allowed for the possibility of political progress being made now. We recognise that the statement that the IRA issued last year, in response to significant pressure and calls for a commitment to democracy and non-violence, was a step forward from its initial statement, which used fairly ambiguous and conditional language and which, in a sense, reserved its right to determine what was a threat to the peace process. However, it is not acceptable for the IRA to argue that it is not a threat to the state or to the other side while continuing to engage in a range of activities — which it perceives to be community policing — against those engaged in low-level crime within its community. Of course, such activity is not acceptable from loyalists either. I wish to extend the discussion on some of the points that Sean Neeson raised last week. Some issues must be considered in the overall package. I have already highlighted that the Governments have failed to define fully what is meant by a ceasefire. Most recently, the UVF has issued threats in the wake of the murders that it committed recently, and there are clearly major doubts about its ceasefire. The NIO has not given us a definition of a ceasefire —certainly not in its most recent letter. If the NIO cannot give us an answer, we may need to ask our own staff for information on legislation and policy areas in which the definition of a ceasefire has a practical effect on delivering the potential for devolution. The Committee has addressed, to some extent, the issue of exiles. We have certainly reached the point at which all five parties have agreed that the practice of exiling should stop, but we must get to the point at which the practice of exiling is seen to have been stopped so effectively that those who have felt the need to leave Northern Ireland, or a part of it, feel free to return home in safety. That does not yet seem to be the case. The general issue of criminality seems to require engagement by all parties at two levels: one is the issue of the practical recognition of the institutions of the state and their legitimacy to enforce the rule of law; the other is participation in those institutions. Any organisation that demonstrates that it has moved away from criminality must show its support for, and be involved in, the advancement of the work not just of the Police Service but of the Assets Recovery Agency, the Organised Crime Task Force (OCTF) and the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA). It is simply not sufficient for the leadership of paramilitary organisations, whatever its alleged motivation, to wash its hands of a problem. There is a need to build a lawful society. That will require some organisations to recognise that, in conjunction with lawful authorities, they must deal with so-called individual acts of criminality that their members have committed. Such organisations must sign up to policing in its fullest sense, support the institutions of the state and support practically the legitimate operations of the rule of law in its wider context in a way in which, at times, members of paramilitary groups have been prepared to do to some extent, albeit not consistently and meaningfully. Mr Paisley Jnr: I want to introduce several proposals, respond to some issues that have already been raised and comment on some that have not. Decommissioning was supposed to mean not only that weapons of war were put away and destroyed, but that that was done in such a way that it built the confidence of the community that had suffered at the hands of those who had used those weapons, namely the unionist community. Decommissioning has failed miserably to build unionist confidence. Much more must be done to convince unionists that the weapons have been put away, destroyed and, indeed, will not be put to further use. The DUP has consistently held the view that a detailed inventory of all the materiel that has been decommissioned should be published in order to enhance public confidence in the process. The eyewitnesses who allegedly saw acts of decommissioning have been struck dumb and are unable to tell us what they witnessed. It is, therefore, essential for the unionist community to see something that convinces it that those weapons have been destroyed and that builds its confidence. The only logical way in which to do that is to publish a detailed inventory. We propose that a detailed inventory of all materiel that has been decommissioned be published urgently to enhance public confidence in the process. Unionist confidence in decommissioning has not been helped by the Independent Monitoring Commission’s (IMC) confusing statements, which have, at times, indicated that some weapons have been destroyed, only for the IMC to claim all of a sudden that more weapons have emerged. The picture is now clouded because there is no definitive position on what has and has not been destroyed. The only way in which a definitive position can be reached is through our proposal that an inventory be published urgently that details what weapons have been decommissioned. I shall now talk about criminality and policing. It is clear that there is a direct association between certain political organisations and paramilitary groups, namely Sinn Féin and the IRA. As long as that association remains and as far as Unionists are concerned, members of Sinn Féin are not fit to be in the Government of Northern Ireland. My party wants to be convinced that Sinn Féin is not only moving away from that association, but that it has moved away from it. 10.45 am We are not yet convinced that Sinn Féin has crossed even the mental Rubicon, the point of no return; that it wants to remove itself and disassociate from criminal gain. We know that criminal gain in Northern Ireland for the Provisional IRA represents a £180 million criminal empire. Its members want to keep their hands on that sort of resource; they do not want to give it up. Unionists have to be convinced that nationalism and republicanism have decided to move away from criminality. The only way in which they can do that is by giving up that criminal empire. How can they demonstrate that it has been given up? My party has said that there are various measures. With respect to policing, they will lead their community and tell them that they must support the police. They will demonstrate support for the police not only verbally and by joining policing organisations, but practically by handing criminals over and calling on the community to do so in areas where they have elected representatives. They will hand them over not to intermediate organisations but to the police. They will call on the police to come into those areas and investigate cases. They will demonstrate their support for the police in practical ways, as seen by every other section of the community. In that regard, I have a second proposal: that association with or support for those involved in criminal activity is incompatible with the holding of ministerial office. This Committee should make its views on that known. We also believe that those criminal organisations should be named and shamed. Political correctness has crept into the matter of criminality. Because it is politically embarrassing for certain organisations to be identified with crime, they are not named and shamed. We should have a deliberate policy of naming and shaming. When a case of cigarettes is stolen by the Provisionals, or when a businessman faces extortion from loyalist paramilitaries, or when a crime that can clearly be identified as having been directed by a paramilitary organisation associated with a political organisation, whether it is Sinn Féin or the UVF or the UDA, those organisations must be named and shamed. Annually the Northern Ireland Organised Crime Taskforce Report is published. In this year’s report there was a very small reference to paramilitary organisations. One of the duties of the Organised Crime Taskforce, as well as to fight crime, is to highlight those activities, so naming and shaming those organisations, especially those involved in drug dealing, should take place. Our third proposal is, therefore, that those involved in drug dealing and organised crime should be named and shamed. I refer specifically to organisations that derive benefit from that. It is unbelievable that political organisations in this part of the United Kingdom can, with such a brass neck, gain from criminal activity and little is said about it. One of the ways that people suggest we fight crime is by having a community policing service. Police officers should, of course, serve the entire community. But the best way to achieve policing is by delivering results for the entire community. One of the best ways to do that is to be seen as the bulwark against crime, as fighting crime and as reducing crime. The way to build confidence in the entire community is to allow the police to fight crime without fear or favour. The biggest contribution that we can make to community policing is to ensure that the police have political stability from all quarters in their battle against crime: that is the largest, single contribution we can make to community policing in a practical way. We have had some comments on community restorative justice, and that can be a diversion from the real issue. The IMC report shows that community restorative justice organisations are directly linked to paramilitary groups, and it states that they act as muscle in certain communities for paramilitary organisations. We should be looking at the restorative justice models we have in front of us and at the proposals that the Government have introduced. We do not want to find ourselves substituting real policing for fake policing, which is really a substitute for paramilitary organisations. The Committee should deal with those issues, and it should endorse the Police Service as the only legitimate police organisation in Northern Ireland. If the Committee cannot say that it is endorsing the Police Service as the only legitimate police service in Northern Ireland, it is failing the entire community. My final proposal is that the Committee should take the issue of support for the Police Service forward. Members say that they are here to prepare for Government, and if they are serious about that, they should demonstrate support for the police by introducing the ministerial Pledge of Office for all matters. We must support the rule of law in Northern Ireland and urge everyone to do the same. A Minister of the Crown here must support the rule of law and urge others to do so. Arrangements should be devised to provide that a breach of the Pledge of Office be directly actionable in the courts and punishable by disqualification from office. In the light of the history of Northern Ireland, there should be a burden on Ministers to demonstrate their support for the rule of law by actively supporting the legitimate Police Service of the state and ensuring that criminals are actively sought out by their own community and punished. That is a way in which the Committee could demonstrate that it is building real and genuine confidence. I am sure that there are other issues that the Committee will come to later in the debate, and my colleagues will say something about them. Mr Raymond McCartney: I will take the three issues together and deal with them as one. In Sinn Féin’s view, one of the main planks of the peace process over the past few years has been to take the gun out of Irish politics. This was duly recognised during the negotiations that led up to the Good Friday Agreement. Sinn Féin believed that it was achievable then and argues that it remains achievable. All parties were urged to use their influence to bring that about, and to a degree some parties have, and some parties have not. However, Sinn Féin believes that it has played a major role in achieving that. When set within its historical context, everybody must acknowledge the initiatives taken by the IRA, which culminated last year in its July 2005 statement that formally ended its armed campaign. Then in October 2005 the decommissioning of arms was carried out in a complete and verifiable way under terms agreed with the IRA and the IICD. If all other armed groups were in as advanced a position as the IRA, we would be in a much better position. Sinn Féin believes that bringing in the armed groups remains an achievable end. It goes without saying that the IRA has pointed the way forward with its July statement, how it dealt with the arms issue and how it has conducted itself since. All of the other armed groups — indeed, all the other parties — should focus on some of the groups that are out there and do not seem to come under the same scrutiny. Many of the things that they do are almost ignored by certain parties with their fixation on IRA weapons that have now been dealt with in a complete and verifiable way. Sinn Féin is opposed to all forms of criminality. By its very definition, it attacks the quality of life of the people we represent. We will continue our efforts to ensure that criminality is tackled in a meaningful and efficient way. We must have policing and judicial institutions that are open, transparent and democratically accountable. Until that is achieved, the lack of trust and confidence in the current policing and judicial arrangements among many people in the nationalist and republican community will continue. Mr Attwood: I will primarily deal with criminality and touch on other matters. We have several motions to table, and it may be that with a little reworking, two motions mentioned by Ian Paisley Jnr could earn the support of the SDLP. However, there are two motions that conflict with what Ian Paisley Jnr has said, and I will return to them at the end. Dealing with criminality has also to do with policing. When the Good Friday Agreement was being designed, it was widely acknowledged that policing was going to be one of the most — if not the most — difficult matters to resolve. Its importance was highlighted by Frank Wright, a Queen’s University lecturer, who said that national conflicts, once they are fully developed, revolve around law, order and justice. Therefore, to resolve the national conflict in Ireland those matters had to be dealt with. That is why five sectors of the Good Friday Agreement are concerned with law, order and justice — the release of prisoners, the criminal justice review, the Patten Commission and the setting up of the Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission. The agreement was an effort to deal with law, order and justice, but of all those, policing was going to be the most difficult. Any objective reading of what has happened around policing in the past five years confirms that it has been the area of single greatest advance arising from the Good Friday Agreement. The record demonstrates that, even if some still choose not to acknowledge it. In five years, according to the Oversight Commissioner, over 84% of Patten has now been substantially or fully implemented. Catholic membership of the PSNI stands at over 20%; five years ago it was 8%. Intelligence standards now comply with best international practice — not the words of the SDLP, but of the Oversight Commissioner himself. The political parties and independent people have demonstrated that they can share responsibility for an acute area of public policy in the North. I could go on, but that is not the point. No one, including the SDLP, is in any doubt that challenges remain. The issue is no longer whether Patten is or is not being implemented, because it clearly and overwhelmingly is being implemented. The question is not whether parties should by now have signed up to Patten and the policing arrangements; they should have. The choice now should not be between being up for all of the agreement and its institutions or just part of them — an à la carte approach that has characterised more than one party at this table over the past five years. The responsibility now is for all parties to sign up to Patten and policing fully. That has several levels. It is in conflict with the Secretary of State’s Glenties speech. Those levels include recommending all to join police services North and South. It means advising all to assist police services North and South in the pursuit of crime, including organised crime. It means accepting the lawful authority of the police and other agencies of the state, both North and South. It means abiding by the rule of law, and it means supporting people who participate in the policing structures, whatever those might be. We have certainly reached the point at which all five parties have agreed that the practice of exiling should stop, but we must get to the point at which the practice of exiling is seen to have been stopped so effectively that those who have felt the need to leave Northern Ireland, or a part of it, feel free to return home in safety. That does not yet seem to be the case. The general issue of criminality seems to require engagement by all parties at two levels: one is the practical recognition of the institutions of the state and their legitimacy to enforce the rule of law; the other is participation in those institutions. Any organisation that demonstrates that it has moved away from criminality must show its support for, and be involved in, the advancement of the work not just of the Police Service but of the Assets Recovery Agency, the Organised Crime Task Force (OCTF) and the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) as well. It is simply not sufficient for the leadership of paramilitary organisations, whatever its alleged motivation, to wash its hands of a problem. There is a need to build a lawful society. That will require some organisations to recognise that, in conjunction with lawful authorities, they must deal with so-called individual acts of criminality that their members have committed. Such organisations must sign up to policing in its fullest sense, support the institutions of the state and support practically the legitimate operations of the rule of law in its wider context in a way in which, at times, members of paramilitary groups have been prepared to do to some extent, albeit not consistently and meaningfully. 11.00 am These are the important questions that should be answered positively. To do so would assist the stability of a restored Assembly and Executive, but, more critically, to do so is a requirement of national democracy. There is a risk that the approach of the British Government, articulated by the Secretary of State, of accepting less than full answers and full commitments on these issues results in outcomes short of what is necessary and justified. The SDLP wants to make it absolutely clear that any outcome short of positive answers to those questions is not the right outcome, and in the party’s view will be destabilising both politically and in policing terms. The SDLP looks forward to discussion on all of this to ensure that the danger of legitimising a political position without full participation in the policing structures and full acceptance of lawful authority and the rule of law does not arise. This approach is the one that binds people and parties into the rule of law and the end of criminality. Any other approach creates ambiguity about the rule of law and the end of criminality and doubt among some that people or parties are less than fully committed to the rule of law. Any other approach could create the sense that there is implied cover for those individuals, gangs or organisations who are still involved in crime, including organised crime, on the island of Ireland. That is why those questions are the right questions that should be asked of every party and every person in the North; of everyone around this table; and by the Secretary of State, despite what he uttered in Glenties. I want to deal with the other matters on the agenda. The first is that of the IMC. I think that most people acknowledge, despite some naysaying, that what the IRA did in terms of its weaponry and its commitments to live up to the standards of Irish democracy last summer was significant. Yes, questions can be asked about one or other detail, and as we have heard here this morning, they are being asked. However, that should not take away from the significance of what the IRA did last summer. The SDLP believes that it was a confidence-building measure. What is required of the Committee is not to re-examine the entrails of what happened last summer; rather it is to require all the other illegal groups to live up to the standards of the IMC whereby arms are put beyond use in a verifiable way. That should be the message that comes out from the Committee. The SDLP will therefore make a proposal to endorse the work of the IMC and call upon all other paramilitary groups to co-operate fully and put their arms beyond use in a verifiable way as soon and as quickly as possible. In relation to the second proposal from Ian Paisley Jnr to the effect that association with criminal gangs is incompatible with membership of an Executive, the SDLP will propose that the ministerial code should be amended to require endorsement of policing arrangements by all Ministers. I will give the wording of that shortly. As for drug-dealing and organised crime, which was also raised by the DUP, the SDLP is supportive of that proposal subject to some adjustment. We want the Committee to agree that people and organisations who are involved in drug-dealing and organised crime, subject to the due process of the law — because we cannot anticipate the decision of the courts — should be identified publicly. We do not agree with naming and shaming, but we do agree with an approach whereby the appropriate authorities, the police, the IMC, the Organised Crime Task Force, or the assets recovery agencies North and South, should identify individuals convicted of organised crime or organisations or gangs still involved in organised crime. That should be a matter of public record in the interest of public confidence. The SDLP would also be supportive of a proposal, suitably re-worded, to call upon all people to assist the police in their enquiries; to encourage people to join the police services North and South; and to encourage people to participate in the policing structures. Mr McFarland: The Committee has already had two substantial meetings on criminality, decommissioning and paramilitarism, and the details of those are in Hansard. I want, however, to revisit a few areas. First, the IMC’s most recent report stated that the IRA is involved in ongoing criminal activity and organised crime. An interesting series of events followed its publication. Encouragingly, Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness both appeared on national television to say that the authorities should deal with criminality. Police on both sides of the border, together with the Assets Recovery Agency (ARA) and the Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB), carried out a substantial raid in south Armagh that resulted in people going on the run and the discovery of computers, money and various bits and pieces. Interestingly, the OCTF reported that, afterwards, there had been a drop in republican organised crime. Perhaps there is a correlation between those two events. The Secretary of State and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in the Republic, Michael McDowell, then seemed to get carried away. They said that the republican leadership was fully committed to ending criminality and that, by and large, all organised crime had ceased. The IMC’s eleventh report, which, I believe, is due for publication next week, is on normalisation. I understand that it will also contain a threat assessment. We shall see whether the views of the Secretary of State and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform are reflected in the report. It has been reported that loyalist organised crime is continuing. Loyalists maintain that they exist simply in reaction to the IRA. However, if the IRA is in the process of standing down and going away, and if it has decommissioned its weapons, why do loyalist groups exist? Many have seemingly morphed into organised-crime gangs. The leadership of the UDA and the UVF must call on their members to abandon organised crime. Those who refuse to do so must be dealt with by the ARA and the courts. The DUP and Sinn Féin will potentially set up a Government, while loyalism will remain unreconstructed, as it has been for the past 30 years. That problem must be solved. The IICD stated that the Provisional IRA had decommissioned its weapons. Significantly, William McCrea and Ian Paisley Jnr accepted that in this Committee. That is on record in Hansard. However, the ‘Eighth Report of the Independent Monitoring Commission’ in February 2006 stated that some weapons had been retained. One might understand that hides could have been forgotten about: people may have died and weapons could remain buried somewhere. One might also understand that some people may have held on to weapons as trophies. The IMC report, however, referred to weapons that had been retained. That has caused confusion because the republican leadership assured people that no weapons had been retained. An article in ‘The Sunday Tribune’ on 23 July stated that the south Derry brigade of the Provisional IRA had broken away from the IRA leadership and had taken its weapons with it. That suggests that people had disobeyed direct orders from the Provisional IRA leadership and had held weapons back. It will be interesting to see whether the IMC reports that those weapons are no longer in the hands of the Provisional IRA, that instead the south Derry brigade possesses them, and, as the article implied, that they are intended for use in dissident activity. If loyalists are to catch the tide and to re-engage fully with the IICD, they must move their weapons off the stage and decommission them. If they exist to combat the IRA, and the IRA is gone, there is no reason for loyalists to hold weapons either. I raised the question of paramilitarism before, and I did not get a proper answer from Sinn Féin. We need to know where the IRA is going. Logically, if it has handed in its weapons and decommissioned, it is no longer an army. Armies need weapons to fight. If it does not intend to offer us violence, or does not intend to fight any longer, what possible reason does it have for existing in its military form? When the wars in which armies have fought are over, most of those armies go home to their farms or wherever, form old comrades’ associations and tell war stories in a pub every last Tuesday in the month. That is the way, traditionally, in which armies have dealt with such issues. Logically, we should see the IRA forming into an old comrades’ association. This is what happened in republican history in the South. Those who fought in the civil war formed old comrades’ associations. If the IRA is genuine and is moving away from paramilitarism and no longer offering violence, we would expect to see it form into that sort of organisation. However we have confusions. Colleagues have mentioned confusion over the exiles, policing and community restorative justice. We know that senior members of the republican movement have morphed themselves into a quasi-police service and are encouraging others to do the same. Mr McGrady has told the Northern Ireland Policing Board that in Downpatrick such groups wander around the estates wearing little armbands as though they were policemen. We have substantial evidence from west Belfast that they are interfering in the community restorative justice system, threatening people and so on. That is no way to operate. We ought to be moving away from the past 30 years, in which case one would expect people to stop that sort of activity and to support the police. As to the paramilitarism of loyalism, if it exists to challenge the IRA, and the IRA is no longer there, we would expect to see loyalist groups move rapidly off the stage and form old comrades’ organisations. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We have had a round-up of the parties’ views. Is there any other comment? Mrs D Kelly: I seek clarity from the Alliance Party. Mr Ford’s opening remarks today differed from those made by Mrs Long at earlier meetings. When we first agreed to put the rule of law on the agenda, we wanted a more than visible respect for the rule of law; it was to be attitudinal. It was not to be the à la carte approach that we have seen in the past from unionist parties, particularly on the policing of parades. The Alliance Party was also keen to emphasise that. Is that still its intent? Mr Ford: If I have not re-emphasised everything that my colleagues have emphasised over the preceding weeks, I apologise. If you wish for a three-hour opening statement from the Alliance Party every time, I am sure that we could re-emphasise everything. I disagree with nothing that Mrs Kelly has said. If I have not said it with quite the same strength as Mrs Long, it may be because my voice is not lasting too well this morning. Mr Maskey: We could certainly get consensus on the need not to have a three-hour opening statement. Mr Ford: That is constructive. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We have a number of proposals. Mr Paisley Jnr: Let us consider them one at a time. My first proposal was that a detailed inventory of all decommissioned weapons be published. Alex Attwood indicated that he has a proposal on that. If he wants to run it in conjunction with mine, that is fine; they are not incompatible. I am looking for an inventory; he is looking for decommissioning to be completed by all organisations in fulfilment of their engagements. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Unfortunately, Mr Attwood is out of the room at the moment. Mrs D Kelly: It is partly a matter of the definition of “verifiable”. We have accepted the word of the independent observers in the past. However, Alex will return shortly. Mr A Maginness: We can work on wordings, anyway. 11.15 am The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The Clerk did not catch your fourth proposal, Ian. The Committee Clerk: Did you have a proposal about the rule of law, Ian? I noted your proposal that those organisations that are involved in drug dealing and organised crime should be named and shamed. Mr Paisley Jnr: It was more or less a statement that arrangements should be devised to prevent a breach of the ministerial code and that any breach be directly actionable in the courts and followed by disqualification from office. I also said that having associations with, and showing support for, those who are involved in criminal activity is incompatible with holding office. The Committee Clerk: That is two more proposals, then. Mr Paisley Jnr: Also, I proposed that those who are involved in drug dealing and organised crime should be named and shamed in a list that is published after their conviction. Mr S Wilson: We have heard this morning from all the members who are sitting around this table. Everyone is happy enough for the gun to be removed from politics and to get rid of criminality, but the real issue, which is how we achieve that, is being ignored. Sinn Féin members seem to be masters in that respect. Last week, for example, it was agreed that community restorative justice schemes were to be operated to the highest possible standards. Yet when a proposal was put that there should be accountability, training, monitoring and that those who are involved in the schemes should have clean records and so forth, it was rejected. Today, we heard that criminality “attacks the quality of life” of communities and therefore should be completely done away with. How can you claim that your aim is to do away with criminality if you will not support anyone who is dealing with that criminality? Sinn Féin will not ask people to join the police or to give assistance or information. When the police raid the houses of those who are engaged in criminality, Sinn Féin defends them and says that they are supporters of the peace process and innocent farmers trying to make a living from their day’s work but that the big, bad police are attacking them. How on earth can you deal with criminality and say that it is an attack on people’s quality of life if you are not prepared to support anybody to whom the state has assigned the authority to deal with criminals? I could mention the court system, as well as the police, in that context. How can there be an improvement in quality of life in the neighbourhoods in which criminal gangs operate if the police are not being supported? What is the answer? Mr Raymond McCartney: Sinn Féin’s position is that there is a lack of trust and confidence in the current policing arrangements. Until new arrangements come into place, we will not support the police. The Committee has already condemned the policy of exiling, and everyone can use this opportunity to grandstand — but what is the definition of an exile? Is an exile someone who is told to leave their house and not return to it? In Belfast a couple of weeks ago there was a spectacle when a number of UDA members were told to leave their houses and go to England. The PSNI lined the streets to make that happen. The police actually stopped the people who were being exiled, searched them and told them to go on their merry way. In a proper society, they would have been told to go back into their homes and the police would not have allowed anybody to exile them. Mr Paisley Jnr: Sammy Wilson posed a number of questions that have not been answered. If the gun is out of politics, there is no shame in the great Óglaigh na hÉireann handing over an inventory of what was destroyed and having it published. I can understand why people are ashamed of their actions, but if the publication of an inventory allows for confidence to be built within the unionist community, why is there not an urgent requirement for Sinn Féin to do it? We were told today that decommissioning was spectacular. If it was so spectacular, an inventory should be published that will silence the critics and show people what was destroyed. I do not believe that it was that spectacular. There have been gaps, and those gaps are more likely to be chasms. The best way to prove that that is not the case is by supporting the proposal that there should be an urgent publication of a detailed inventory of the weapons that were supposed to have been destroyed. We hear the rhetoric that republicans cannot support the police because they are not open and transparent. This is not a matter for us: the onus is on republicans to demonstrate where the police and the justice system are not open and transparent. The fact is that the Police Service and the justice process here are the most transparent services in western Europe. Ombudsmen and all sorts of international organisations are examining them through microscopes. Sinn Féin should say how the Police Service is not open and transparent. It is open and transparent, and just saying that it is not is not an argument for non-support. The issue here is that, once again, Sinn Féin has proved that it has not crossed the mental line, the Rubicon, the point of no return, because it does not have any desire to support law and order. It is up to Sinn Féin to demonstrate how it will support the only legitimate law and order mechanisms that presently exist. Mr McFarland: I understand that Sinn Féin and the republican movement have been conducting a detailed analysis of policing and where they will go with it. There was talk of their holding an Ard-Fheis shortly to have a detailed discussion on the subject. In November 2004 the DUP and Sinn Féin had a detailed plan as to who was going to do what and when, although I know that people have since said that they did not sign up to anything. By the following February they were going to have discussions of modalities, which we have heard round this table, and the policing issue was going to progress. For that to have potentially happened — and I know that it did not happen and was torpedoed for whatever reason — there would have been some thought within republicanism as to how it was going to deal with policing, otherwise it would not have got to the stage of a comprehensive agreement. If Sinn Féin has re-launched a discussion on policing, it would be useful to know what stage that has reached. The DUP has said that it will not go into Government with Sinn Féin until the policing issue is decided and signed up to. That is clearly a blockage to Government. This Committee is designed to identify and, perhaps, deal with blockages. Until we get to the stage where Sinn Féin accepts policing and encourages young republicans to join, we will not get anywhere, no matter how long we spend in this room or how many talks there are in the autumn. I wonder whether Sinn Féin can give us some indication of how far it has gone down the road of consultation. We have the most examined police service in the world. Hugh Orde spends all his time complaining to the Policing Board about the multitude of agencies that he has to answer to. It is not as though this Police Service is not monitored or examined every day of the week. What is it going to take now? Sinn Féin is not going to get what it keeps demanding, which is that every member of the PSNI who was in the RUC should be drummed out. Given the amount of safeguards that exist, what now prevents Sinn Féin from signing up to policing? Mr Maskey: I will respond, but I will take a slightly different focus. I remind members that this meeting is not about Sinn Féin; it is about the rule of law. Several issues, many of which have been covered, can be discussed under that heading, and I do not intend to repeat what Raymond McCartney said this morning, or what I and other colleagues have said in recent weeks or years. Let us widen the debate. There have been reports that the UVF has been threatening people in the past week. The deputy leader of Mr McFarland’s party is here, and his and Mr McFarland’s party has absorbed a member of the PUP into its party grouping, for, as he says, reasons of political advantage. Sometimes the party says that that was done to influence paramilitary decommissioning. Perhaps, in his lofty commentary on and questioning of my party, Mr McFarland will address how far he has got with tackling UVF paramilitarism, which has hit our streets again in the past weeks and days. When we hear Ian Paisley Jnr talking about drug dealers, the rule of law and support for the police, we have only to look at Ballymena, which for many years has been the Paisley bailiwick. It seems a contradiction that the most rabid pro-policing and pro-law-and-order commentary, which goes back for decades, comes from the drugs capital of the North of Ireland. The amount of hard drugs that has long been available on its streets means that it can compete with other parts of the country as a whole in that respect. Those are questions — paramilitarism, criminality, the use of arms and the failure and refusal to decommission — over which the unionist parties can have at least some influence. All of the focus is on my party’s activities. However, we can argue that our influence has been positive and will continue to be so. Why not apply some of your lofty sentiments towards some of your own spheres of influence? You have not done that in any credible fashion here. Let us widen the discussion to see what the unionist parties are doing, as opposed to simply questioning my party. Mr McFarland: I was simply looking for factual guidance for the community — I was simply saying, “Where have we got to with this?” I am happy enough to get into a discussion about loyalism. We do not have an armed wing. We have decided, rightly or wrongly, to make some effort to encourage loyalism to go down the road of decommissioning and move off the stage. That is a laudable thing to try to do. Sinn Féin is a different organisation. Mr Maskey: Will you give us an indication of how far you are getting with that? Last week your party had to call on the UVF to withdraw — Mr McFarland: We will see fairly shortly how far we have got. The point that I am making is that Sinn Féin is unlike any other political party here. I know that it has gone on for years about how it is unconnected to the IRA. However, it is a fact that Sinn Féin and the IRA are directly connected and, for many years, the leaders of each were the same people. The influence that the Sinn Féin leadership has on the republican movement is substantial. 11.30 am My question did not concern that; it was about how far the debate has gone in the republican movement with regard to supporting the police. The DUP has said that without that firm commitment it will not play at all; therefore, if that commitment is close, we have some reason for going on with this. If we are far from that point, the Committee needs to know that it is wasting its time. If, on the other hand, we are close — and there has been plenty of discussion — the DUP might be encouraged to make more effort in the Committee to get things working. The direction in which loyalism is going is key and must be dealt with. However, we do not have an armed wing; we simply encourage people to follow a road that seems to make sense, if we are to have Government here and get away from all this. I am worried that, instead of trying to answer the question or, in good faith, making a few pleasant noises about it, the person who asked the question is immediately attacked. All I asked was, “Where have you got to with this?” Mr Paisley Jnr: I shall come back on a couple of things. It is easy to make slurs against a place by saying that it is a drugs capital. However, it is only a slur: there is no evidence. A recent Queen’s University report into drug abuse shows that the use of heroin is greatest in two areas of Northern Ireland, neither of which is Ballymena. I will not name the places, but one member who spoke should know it quite well. Ballymena does not have the highest incidence of the use of heroin by injection. That is a finding of the most up-to-date report. However, that is not the issue. The issue is that drugs are a plague on this society, yet we hear no condemnation from the republican community of those who peddle drugs, because it is their people who peddle them. That is a fact. Recently, the police arrested five drug dealers in Ballymena. Mr Raymond McCartney: That was this year. Mr Paisley Jnr: The ordinary unionist community, who put up the evidence and allowed cameras to be installed in places where those people could be filmed and subsequently captured, supported those arrests. What we hear from Sinn Féin is not a considered help in the fight against drugs, but words designed to hinder that fight. One must ask why, and the answer is glaringly obvious: Sinn Féin benefits from drug money. Yet its members come here, piously wanting to be in the Government of Northern Ireland. That is hypocrisy gone mad. Again, questions were asked of Sinn Féin. It has been alleged that the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the justice system are neither open nor transparent. When asked to explain how policing and justice could be more open and transparent, there were no answers, only slurs against some towns in Northern Ireland, mainly Ballymena. Is Sinn Féin’s problem that there are too many Protestants in the police? Is it a problem that it is a UK police service? Is the problem that it hates law and order and wants to control certain parts of Northern Ireland, because, as I said earlier, it makes £180 million from crime here? The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee recently received evidence of payments that builders were making to IRA/Sinn Féin. One of them has had to pay a six-figure sum this year, and that has gone into the coffers of IRA and, ultimately, to Sinn Féin. Does Sinn Féin need that money to run its supply centres, develop its criminal empire and build its political empire? Sinn Féin does not want to answer these charges, because Sinn Féin is as guilty as hell. It is scared to answer them and turn the situation around, because it benefits from all that crime. Until it moves away from criminality, until it crosses the point of no return, there is not a pup’s chance of its ever getting within breathing distance of Government in Northern Ireland. The sooner it faces that reality and makes the necessary hard choices, the better. Mr Raymond McCartney: That is rhetoric and more rhetoric. People are here for a sensible discussion, but what we heard in the past few minutes was far from that. People know Sinn Féin’s position; we have been discussing it for many years. This Committee has talked about it recently, and, if I may say so, very constructively: transfer, timescale and agreement models. It has been a frank and open discussion, free from the kind of rhetoric that we have heard this morning. We could make allegations about this or that, but where is the evidence? Where are the facts? They are not there. People hide behind IMC reports, intelligence, ‘The Sunday Tribune’ and so forth. We can all produce newspapers; we can all talk about Ulster resistance, Billy Wright and the Rev William McCrea. We can go round the houses all day long, but we will get no closer to resolving the big issues. Mr McFarland asked about the stage that republicans have got to with policing. There was an open and frank discussion about that in the republican community. Sinn Féin laid its terms before the people, and those are endorsed, with increasing strength, at every election. If people want to deal with policing it is there for discussion: it concerns transfer, timescale and agreement models. As Alex Maskey said, we can all grandstand, play to Hansard and run out of here to give sound bites, but we are getting no closer to a solution. It is disingenuous of Mr McFarland to come here this morning and pretend that we have not addressed some of those issues in the past few weeks. Perhaps he is trying to outdo Mr paisley Jnr. That is fair enough. Mr Attwood: I will revisit one or two issues before I comment on the more recent exchanges. The SDLP will not support the DUP’s proposal for the publication of an inventory on what the IRA did or did not decommission last year. Whether we like it or not, there is an accepted basis for working with the IMC. The IRA and the IMC reached understandings. Whatever doubts may linger, that is the situation. However, the DUP is proposing a moveable feast. If it gets an inventory, it will be dissected; if it gets the photographs, they will not be enough; if there were 10 witnesses — some of its choosing — that might still not be enough. The danger of the DUP’s proposal is that, for political reasons, it tries to change the parameters within which the IMC works. That damages the IMC’s integrity in the overall political process. The SDLP will certainly not go down that road. The DUP should support a proposal that calls on all groupings that continue to hold weapons, republican and loyalist, to put those weapons verifiably beyond use and to work with the IMC to build confidence in that process. Mr Paisley Jnr: Mr Attwood, I have no problem with that part of the proposal. However, the IICD has a mechanism for publication, and the early and urgent publication of an interim report would be of mighty assistance in helping to build confidence. That would assist not only unionists but everyone who is concerned about this. Clearly, we are all concerned about it. We have been told that the decommissioning was spectacular. Therefore, a published inventory of such a spectacular act would silence critics. Surely we can come to some sort of agreement so that the proposal can incorporate Mr Attwood’s remarks and also ask for the urgent publication of an inventory that can inspire confidence? Does the member not see merit in that? Mr Attwood: I was not asked to give way, Mr Chairman. Had I been, I would have given way. If you are to chair the Committee appropriately, I believe that it is your duty to ask a member whether he wants to give way. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I try to create dialogue and discussion. Mr Weir: Will the member give way? Mr Attwood: Mr Paisley Jnr’s point brings me to my last comment. The DUP does not trust the IRA on what it may or may not have decommissioned last year. It needs more reassurance. Sinn Féin must recognise that that is paralleled by unionist doubts about republican intentions: when a way forward is established, Sinn Féin and the republican movement keep changing the rules in a way that fuels mistrust. Just as the IRA, the republican movement, Sinn Féin and even the SDLP and the wider nationalist community mistrust the DUP because it keeps moving the goalposts on decommissioning, similarly, unionists and elements of nationalism mistrust the republican movement because it keeps moving the goalposts on policing. Sinn Féin and the DUP should see that that parallel fuels the mistrust of the other community. That is what happened with regard to policing. If Sinn Féin had kept to its previous, publicly stated position on policing, people might believe its assertions that it will sign up to policing. Several years ago, the then chairperson of Sinn Féin stated publicly that if the British Government passed a second Act on police reforms, his party would not be found wanting when it came to policing. That is on public record. Yet when the second Act was passed and given Royal Assent at Easter 2003, Sinn Féin was found wanting when it came to policing. That creates doubts, especially in the unionist community, about Sinn Féin’s true intentions on policing. When the time came to sign up to policing — which is what Sinn Féin said it would do — it did not do so, and the game moved on. There is, therefore, a parallel. On the one hand, Sinn Féin says that it will commit itself, then it changes the rules. That fuels mistrust. On the other hand, the DUP changes the rules with regard to the work of the IMC. That also creates mistrust. Raymond McCartney made a rather odd comment earlier. He said that until there is trust, Sinn Féin would not endorse the policing arrangements. That was odd because Sinn Féin — indeed, Martin McGuinness — has said that if we wait for the day when there is trust, we will have to wait a long time before there is restoration of the political institutions. Mr S Wilson: Will the member give way? Mr Attwood: Yes. Mr S Wilson: Will the member accept the fact that it is impossible to build that trust when every Sinn Féin spokesperson tells people not to trust the police? It has become cyclic: on the one hand, Sinn Féin says that it cannot endorse the police until there is trust; on the other hand, Sinn Féin does its best to ensure that there is no trust. Mr Attwood: Sinn Féin’s template for participation in the political structures is that trust is not required because trust is intangible and difficult to define and achieve. The basis for participation in the political structures is that parties have lived up to the various requirements of the Good Friday Agreement and the undertakings of democracy. That should also be the basis for participation in the policing structures. It is not a matter of whether one trusts the police. There is a template of accountability, and Patten-compliant policing has been achieved. That was the tipping point for people to support the policing structures, and it was reached long ago. The real reason that Sinn Féin has not signed up to policing has nothing to do with the implementation of the Patten Report recommendations on police accountability; it is to do with that party having a negotiated advantage and political leverage and being able to keep the Governments guessing about its intentions. It is time for Sinn Féin to get off that roundabout and to take heed of Gerry Adams’s comments in a recent ‘Irish Times’ article that, whether or not there is devolution of justice and policing, the policing issue has to be dealt with. At a previous Committee meeting, Sinn Féin said that it could wait for 12 months for the devolution of policing and justice. The SDLP does not endorse that. However, if justice and policing powers are not to be devolved soon, and if we must wait for them for 12 months — or longer — after restoration, Sinn Féin must deal with the policing issue now, as Gerry Adams asserted might happen in that ‘Irish Times’ article. It is better to do that than give the DUP the opportunity to score points and damage the agreement and the prospect of restoration. 11.45 am Mr McFarland: As I said at the beginning, trust is a product of engagement. Trust does not exist at the outset of discussions; it is the end product of people dealing with one another. I want to return to one of Raymond McCartney’s points. As I understand it, he said that Sinn Féin has three requirements in relation to the devolution of policing and justice: a timescale; the models to be agreed; and an agreement to transfer. Should those requirements be met, that would do the business. Mr Raymond McCartney: No, that is not the complete list of requirements. I am not going to give the party’s complete negotiation position right now, but those requirements are only part of it. Those are the issues that we discussed at this Committee. That is what I said. Mr McFarland: I was trying to tease out the issues because this discussion is about barriers to getting the Government up and running. We have discussed the fact that the DUP, as I understand it, requires Sinn Féin to sign up to policing — Mr Maskey: Are you speaking for the DUP now? Mr McFarland: No. I said: “As I understand it”. Mr Maskey: You keep referring to what the DUP is asking for rather than what you are asking for. Mr McFarland: If the DUP and Sinn Féin do not agree to anything, in the end, there will be nothing. As we discovered from the comprehensive agreement, until the two largest parties of each block, the DUP and Sinn Féin, say “Yes”, government here cannot work. If we reach the stage of coalitions or whatever, that is an entirely different matter. However, that it is not what the Belfast Agreement allows for. It allows for a forcible coalition between the DUP and Sinn Féin, and either party has a veto. My understanding is that the DUP has said publicly that it requires Sinn Féin to sign up to policing. I was trying to tease out from Sinn Féin’s remarks if there is a basis on which it would sign up to policing and how far it has gone in its discussions. This Committee is designed to tease out those barriers. Mr McCartney, you said that there are three barriers to Sinn Féin signing up to policing, and you are on record as saying that they are: timescale; modalities; and agreement to transfer. I get the impression that there are now other barriers, which you are unwilling to share with the Committee. Is that right? Mr Raymond McCartney: Gerry Kelly has already raised those issues at this Committee. Mr McFarland: Absolutely, yes. Mr Raymond McCartney: Mr McFarland, you were being a bit disingenuous in your presentation and, at times, a bit patronising. In one of your earlier submissions, you said that the IRA no longer existed because an army that has no guns is no longer an army. I am paraphrasing your remarks. Mr McFarland: As an army. Mr Raymond McCartney: Yes. However, in your next presentation you said that Sinn Féin has an armed wing. One remark contradicts the other. Thus, you were being disingenuous and patronising. In your terms, an armed wing cannot exist if an army does not exist. I want to stress that that is in your terms, because, as far as I am concerned, Sinn Féin does not have an armed wing. As you will be well aware, “Policing issues” was item 2 on the agenda of a previous meeting. Gerry Kelly raised those issues and brought them to the Committee. I was pointing out some of the barriers in the broadest terms possible. I think that you are aware of that, and to pretend that you are not is being disingenuous. Mr McFarland: I am trying to have dialogue to identify whether Sinn Féin is close to taking the decision to support policing. It told an earlier meeting of the Committee that it was not yet able to take that decision. Why is Sinn Féin still unable to decide? Mr McCartney has told the Committee that he has still difficulties with the timescale, and he wants to know when it will be devolved and what the model will be. We discussed all that earlier on. He also wants a commitment that the DUP, or whoever, will agree to that transfer. Logically, if we could agree to those issues — modalities and timescales — we would have solved the problem, and Sinn Féin would then be able to sign up to policing. However, Mr McCartney has just said that there are other negotiating points. The Committee has been set up specifically to identify blockages. We do not want to interfere with Sinn Féin’s negotiating position, but if other negotiating issues are blocking agreement to policing, it would be helpful if Mr McCartney were to share them with the Committee. Then the Committee might be able to add them to the existing list and, perhaps, solve them. Mr S Wilson: I gather from Sinn Féin this morning that first among the issues is a lack of trust. As I pointed out to Alex Attwood, that is rather circular. The lack of trust is partly due to the discouragement that Sinn Féin gives to people within the nationalist community to co-operate with the police, to join the police or to involve themselves in policing structures. It would not even encourage people to go to the police with information about one of the most appalling rapes that ever happened in Northern Ireland. Secondly, there is the issue of transparency. What further transparency is required? The Oversight Commissioner examines how the police have met the changes outlined by the Government, and his report is published every six months and is available to the public, including Sinn Féin. The Criminal Justice Inspectorate’s reports, the Ombudsman’s reports and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabularies’ reports are all available to the public. I do not know what other transparency or information is required, other than for the police to divulge information that no police service would ever divulge to anybody. We are told that transparency is a block, but we have not been told what issues are not available to Sinn Féin or others. Thirdly, there is the transfer of policing. Sinn Féin wishes to see that happen on the basis that the party would have some ministerial responsibility for the Police Service. It envisages that the transfer will occur at a time when the Minister, and the party to which he belongs, will tell people not to trust, join or assist the police and will condemn the police for taking on criminals, raiding their homes and searching them. It is all pie in the sky. No one will agree to the transfer of policing in that context. No one could agree to its transfer. It would totally undermine those in the Police Service if policing powers were transferred in those conditions. Sinn Féin is good at pointing the finger at everyone else. It says it is the Government’s fault that it has not moved on this because they have not done certain things, and that it is the other parties’ fault because they will not agree to the transfer of policing. Transfer of policing cannot take place while Sinn Féin adheres to its current attitude to police, policing and law and order and, as other members have pointed out, while it maintains some of its associations. The party shows no sign of change. This morning Sinn Féin used rhetoric to the effect that criminality affects quality of life and that it wants the best quality of life for people in its areas. But there has been no indication of how that is going to be achieved in the absence of supporting the police, unless Sinn Féin has some other plan involving separate policing arrangements that it alone can sign up to. No one here is going to accept that. Mr Kennedy: My party shares enthusiasm for an inventory of decommissioned weapons to be published as soon as possible. That has been our consistent line. Does the DUP consider the publication of an inventory sufficient to deal with the issue of decommissioning, or does the party have other matters of concern? Mr Paisley Jnr: The inventory is about trying to build unionist confidence. A considerable amount of intelligence material about what the IRA possesses has been published and is available. It would be a logical step to compare any published inventory with information in Jane’s International Defence Review and other sources, and align it with claims that decommissioning is complete. We would measure it on that basis. If we are told that it was spectacular, it will silence us. What greater incentive is there to our opponents than to silence the DUP on this? We want people to prove that it is concluded. If the inventory were to show significant gaps, that plastic explosives or certain types of weapons were not accounted for, anyone, whether in the DUP or in any other party, would be right to examine that and hold people to account. We would be happy to have the rug pulled from under our feet on this. We want to see these weapons done away with. It is in the interests of the people in our community who have had the guns pointed at them and have seen loved ones buried and some of Ulster’s finest men and women murdered and butchered by those weapons. It is in our interests to be silenced on this issue, because decommissioning will be complete. How long is a piece of string? We stand to be convinced. We will only be convinced when we have material that proves that the act of decommissioning was complete and genuine. I hope that publication of an inventory will be of assistance. Mr Kennedy: Once an inventory is published and compared, that will be enough for the DUP to make a judgement on decommissioning. Is that what the DUP is saying? Or would the DUP prefer another, more public, demonstration of decommissioning if it were possible? Mr Paisley Jnr: That is to introduce a hypothetical situation. If publication of an inventory revealed that only one third or half of IRA weapons were destroyed, everyone would say that there is more to do. That might open up prospects for an act of decommissioning that satisfied people. I am reluctant to discuss that hypothetical situation. 12.00 noon Mr Weir: It would allow us to make a judgement. Whether that judgement was positive or negative would depend on what was in the inventory. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We have a number of proposals; the first one was from Mr Paisley. Mr Paisley Jnr: The first proposal was that a detailed inventory of decommissioned materiel be published urgently in order to enhance public confidence. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do we have consensus on that? Members indicated dissent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): That proposal falls. Mr Attwood had a proposal. Mr Attwood: I propose that the Committee endorses the work of the IMC and calls on paramilitary organisations to co-operate fully and without delay in putting illegal weapons verifiably beyond use. Several Members: IICD. Mr Attwood: Yes, sorry. My proposal is subject to that useful amendment. I propose that the Committee endorses the work of the IICD and calls on paramilitary organisations to co-operate fully and without delay in putting illegal weapons verifiably beyond use. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do we have consensus? Mr Maskey: Does that include all the armed organisations that are out there, some of which may not be defined as paramilitary, or even illegal, like Ulster Resistance, for example? Mr Weir: Or the UN. [Laughter.] Mr McFarland: It refers to illegal weapons. Mr Attwood: “Paramilitary organisations” is an inclusive term. Mr S Wilson: Will Mr Attwood accept an addition to his proposal, stating that the details of what has happened should be published at the end of the process? Mr Attwood: No. At this stage in the process, that is the height of people’s obligations. Mr McFarland: The IICD has publicly stated that, at the end of this process, it will produce an inventory of all the weapons. The reason it is not publishing it now is that it still has the loyalist weapons to take in. Mr Ford: That is my understanding. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We have the proposal from Mr Attwood. Mr Weir: I would like to know whether Mr Attwood is going to accept Mr Wilson’s amendment. Mr Attwood: I must be honest: I was not aware that the IICD had said that. I will amend my proposal to add a clause calling for the IICD to conclude its work as it has indicated that it will. I do not want to sign up Mr Wilson’s words. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do we have consensus? Mr Raymond McCartney: What is the proposal again? Mr Attwood: That the Committee endorses the work of the IICD and calls on paramilitary organisations to co-operate fully and without delay in putting illegal weapons verifiably beyond use and calls on the IICD to conclude its work as it has indicated. Mr Raymond McCartney: Without the preamble, I suggest that the proposal read: the Committee calls on the IICD to continue with its work and to conclude it promptly. Mr Weir: An important part of the proposal is the call for all paramilitary organisations to get rid of their weaponry. We would consent to that. Mr Raymond McCartney: That is what he IICD was set up to do: to take arms out of the equation. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We have a proposal. Do we have consensus? Members indicated dissent. Mr Weir: There is a surprise. Mr Raymond McCartney: We have another hour and a half to kill here. [Interruption.] The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I ask members to keep in order, and I ask the same of party researchers, who are not part of the meeting. Mr Paisley Jnr: We are going to make a proposal. Mr McFarland: Will you repeat that, Mr Chairman? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Party researchers are not part of the meeting, so communication between the table and the researchers should be through the Clerks. Mr Paisley Jnr: We propose that association with, or support for, those involved in criminal activity is incompatible with the holding of ministerial office. Mr Ford: I ask the DUP to explore that further. It is a negative proposal. Surely the issue should be whether those in ministerial office are fully committed to upholding the rule of law, which is a somewhat stronger statement than the negative of not supporting — Mr Paisley Jnr: We have a proposal on the ministerial code as well. That is our third. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do we have consensus on that proposal? Mr Attwood: My party suggests that that proposal lies on the table. It refers to issues that the PFG Committee dealing with institutional matters deals with, and we need to talk with Dr Farren about it. We have already tried twice to contact him. Can that proposal remain on the table, and we will return to it and the other proposals? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): There is also the ministerial code and all the different issues that are associated with that. Mr McFarland: That is an issue for the Monday team to deal with. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): What is the next proposal? Mr Paisley Jnr: Mr Attwood said that we might be able to get consensus on the proposal that those who are involved in drug dealing and organised crime should be published upon conviction. Mr Attwood: The proposal I have is that that the Committee recommends that appropriate agencies, including policing, assets and crime organisations should, subject to due process, publish details of individuals, gangs or organisations involved in crime. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Is that not done in a court case? Mr McFarland: If you go to court, such details are all public anyway. The Assets Recovery Agency publicises the names of people whom it prosecutes. When the agency goes to the High Court to take out an injunction against those people, it is obliged to identify them publicly. Anyone who is involved with the Assets Recovery Agency or with the courts is publicly identified. What is the logic behind those proposals? Mr Paisley Jnr: As I have said already, pages 28 to 29 of the latest Organised Crime Task Force report deals with those who are involved in those criminal activities, specifically the paramilitary groups. The discussion amounts to a couple of paragraphs, yet throughout the report we have details of over £300 million worth of crime. It is inadequate to reduce the details of who is responsible for that to a couple of paragraphs of a report. It is for that purpose that the DUP puts this up front. Mr McFarland: In its threat assessment of organised crime, the IMC identifies the paramilitary organisations that are involved, but how do you legally identify people as a result of intelligence? That is entirely different from identifying people who have appeared before a court. We are into the stage of — Mr Paisley Jnr: That is why we are identifying organisations. Mr McFarland: They are identified anyway. The IMC identifies which organisations are involved in organised crime in some detail. Its report of March last year included a detailed examination of the paramilitary organisations that were involved in organised crime and what they were doing. Perhaps the report that is due out next week will have the same threat assessment. What is it that we are not doing that could be done legally? You cannot identify individuals who have not been before a court. Mr Maskey: My party is unsure what it is being asked to endorse, but there have been far too many examples of political policing — to put it mildly — in the past while. Therefore the IMC can say whatever the hell it likes tomorrow or next week. We do not accept its legitimacy or validity. Therefore the question is: is it within the law? Yes, it is, because it was legislated for. We do not accept that. That does not mean to say that we do not want people to be named and shamed. At the end of the day the bottom line is that if people are convicted of crime, invariably they are named and shamed. I do not know what this proposal is getting at. From what we have heard so far we would not support it. It wants to endorse political policing retrospectively. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Mr Attwood, do you have a proposal? Mr Attwood: Alan McFarland may be right. This proposal is nothing new; what we would want to happen is already happening. Mr Paisley Jnr: What is new is that this Committee is putting its imprimatur on the fact that these matters must be published — that it is in the public interest — and that greater effort should be made to make the public aware of organisations and individuals who are involved in drug dealing and organised crime. Some of the publications that take responsibility for this do not publish accurate material or details of the material. However, if the Ulster Unionists and Sinn Féin have a problem with that — Mr McFarland: We are trying to be sensible, and that is a silly comment. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Maybe it is one that the Committee needs to tackle later. Mr McFarland: If Ian Paisley wants, the Committee could endorse the fullest available information being made available. I do not have a problem with that. It is happening already, by and large, and if there is anything else that is not happening that the Committee can do, I have absolutely no problem with that. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Mr Attwood, will you put the proposal and see if there is consensus? Mr Attwood: The proposal is that the Committee recommends that the appropriate agencies should, subject to due process, publish as fully as possible details of individual gangs and organisations involved in crime. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do members agree? Members indicated dissent. Mr McFarland: Who said “no”? Mr Kennedy: Sinn Féin said “no”; we said “yes”. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): There is no record of who says “yes” or “no”. I am sure the papers will have it covered. What is the next proposal? Mr Paisley Jnr: The next proposal deals with the Pledge of Office to support the rule of law in Northern Ireland and urge others to do so. Mr McFarland: Mr Chairman, logically, that would revert to Monday’s Committee meeting. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I was thinking that. Mr Paisley Jnr: It is important that this Committee expresses its view on it. I sit on the other Committee, and it is obsessed with what this Committee thinks. Mr S Wilson: I appreciate that that probably lies within the remit of the other Committee. However, this Committee was specifically set up to look at issues of policing, the rule of law et cetera, and it is not therefore inappropriate for it to make some suggestions as to how it believes the support for policing and the rule of law begin, and if they are underpinned by the Pledge of Office, this Committee should convey that to the other Committee. It may conclude that it is part of the package that it puts forward. However, since this Committee is dealing with policing, law and order et cetera, it is a useful motion for giving some guidance to the other Committee. Mr Ford: I think Sammy Wilson has a point. The difficulty is that the specific formalities of the Pledge of Office are part of the other Committee’s work. However, the principle of incorporating a pledge to uphold the rule of law, which was Alliance’s term and not quite the same one that Ian Paisley used, within the pledge seems entirely within the remit of this Committee. Could the Committee agree today in principle, and leave the mechanics to Monday’s Committee meeting? Mr S Wilson: Could it then read along the lines that we believe that when constructing a Pledge of Office consideration could be given to — The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Each party in Monday’s Committee meeting will have variations of the Pledge of Office or how it is dealt with. Do we have consensus? 12.15 pm Mr Raymond McCartney: To have it referred back? Mr Attwood: The SDLP needs to have a conversation before it can allow it to go back in that form. Mr Paisley Jnr: The Committee will leave it on the agenda. Mr Attwood: Yes, leave it on the table. Mr S Wilson: Mr Attwood, if the proposal were changed now to read: “We believe that there ought to be consideration in the Pledge of Office to a commitment to the rule of law”, the Committee is not saying what the Pledge of Office should say. Mr Attwood: I know where I stand, but I need to check with others. We are not saying no, we are just leaving it lying for a week. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): What is the next proposal? Mr Paisley Jnr: It follows on from the previous proposal, and I assume that the answer will be the same. The proposal is that arrangements be devised to provide that breach of the Pledge of Office be directly actionable in the courts and punishable by disqualification from office. That would fall into how people react to the first part of that. Mr Ford: That really is an issue for the Monday Committee. Mr Paisley Jnr: The issue is how we act if there is a breach of the Pledge. Mr Ford: I accept that, but it is straying on to Monday territory rather than sticking with today’s. Mr Paisley Jnr: It would be useful if parties could let us have some views on this. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Any other proposals? Mr Attwood: I have one that I know will be immediately embraced. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): It is nearly lunchtime. Mr Attwood: I know. I propose that the Committee calls on all parties to recommend that people join the police, assist the police with enquiries, including those into organised crime, encourage people to participate in the policing structures and co-operate with other agencies that address crime and organised crime. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do we have consensus? I do not think that there is any need for debate. Members indicated dissent. Mr Ford: I made this point earlier, but I did not formally propose it. Given that Rachel Miller’s letter makes no response to our request for definitions of “normalisation” and “ceasefire”, I formally propose that we request our research staff to provide information on the areas of legislation and policy on which the definition of a ceasefire may have practical effects or deliver entitlements. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do we have consensus? Members indicated assent. Mr Ford: I hope that we can agree that, if the NIO will not provide that information, we can ask our staff, who clearly have nothing much else to do this week. Hansard will record that I was smiling as I said that. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are there any other issues on that? We will adjourn for a few minutes and come back to deal with the matters that have been left unresolved, of which there is a full page. Mr McFarland: What are they, as a matter of interest? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The page is being circulated now so that members can look at it while having their lunch. The Committee Clerk: We are trying to empty the car park. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The car park is overloaded and the clampers are in. Mr Maskey: What will we be referring to next week — the two residual matters? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We talked about leaving them on the table because they were not completed. We will break for 15 or 20 minutes. When members come back we will move through these issues swiftly. Mr Paisley Jnr: Is lunch on? The Committee Clerk: Lunch probably has not arrived. Mr Paisley Jnr: Why not spend 15 minutes dealing with some of this and then take lunch? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Lunch has not arrived, so we can continue until lunch is here. OK, lunch is here. We will adjourn until 12.45 pm. If members come back swiftly we can have this all sorted out by 1.00 pm. The Committee was suspended at 12.19 pm. On resuming — 12.46 pm The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We must try to clear up the matters that have been left unresolved, because the Committee Clerks are trying to compile a report. If we can resolve all the issues, so much the better, but let us try to make decisions on some of them, one way or the other. We shall begin with “Ministerial arrangements for a single policing and justice department”. We had talked along the lines of having a single Department, but the ministerial a rrangements had not been finalised. I do not know whether we can go any further now. Mr S Wilson: We do not want to go any further on the question of a single Department, but what the PFG Committee dealing with institutional matters does may influence us. Mr Kennedy: Ministerial arrangements are likely to form part of the political negotiations in the autumn. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Can we agree, at least, that this Committee has taken the matter as far as it can? Mr Maskey: Further discussion is needed, wherever that takes place, but it must continue, because we have made a little bit of progress. There will be no proposal on the matter today, however. Mr S Wilson: We do not want to go any further, because the PFG Committee dealing with institutional issues’ discussion about the ministerial code will influence our view on the matter. We want to know what the arrangements would be for the Minister or Ministers of such a Department. For that reason, we would rather leave further discussion until we see what comes out of that discussion. Mr McFarland: The devolution of policing and justice would also impinge on the number of Departments. If, for example, policing and justice were not devolved until after the next Assembly election, we would have, upon restoration, the same number of Departments as we currently have. If we were to reduce the number of Departments that we have at present and create a policing and justice Department in order to have 10 or fewer Departments, that would raise a host of departmental issues. The issue probably lends itself to being part of the full negotiations, as it affects the number of ministerial posts and the parties’ views of where all this is going. It may form part of an overall deal rather than be resolved in Committee. Mr Attwood: We agree. Useful progress has been made, and if all parties were to sit down, in whatever format, to decide on a final model, more useful progress could be made. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Does anyone want to record a proposal to take this to the next stage? The Committee can sign off on it if it has taken the issue as far as it can or recommend that it goes to further negotiations. Mr S Wilson: I agree with Mr Attwood. We made some progress on it, but I am not so sure that further progress could be made here. Perhaps we should simply say that the Committee welcomes the progress made in discussions and that it is now moving it on to the other PFG group for further discussions between the parties. Mr McFarland: It would be unfortunate if this were to come to horse-trading between the two largest parties. It would be very useful to provide that, when it is discussed, it will be in all-party format. Mr S Wilson: That format is probably one of the reasons for the progress we have made. I agree that that might be a better way to do it rather than let it lie dead for a while. It should move to the other group. That would facilitate all-party discussion on it, rather than allow it to become an issue for two parties. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The PFG Committee dealing with institutional matters is exploring the ministerial code of conduct on Monday. Perhaps we should come back to this one. Mr McFarland: One difficulty is that this group, in whatever format it works, has not been able to deal with some substantial issues, namely those relating to whether we should have fewer MLAs or whether to amalgamate Departments for efficiency and to free up a potential Department of policing and justice. We also need an assessment of the effect of a reduced number of Departments, and potentially of MLAs, on various parties and their numbers in here. The model that parties choose to support will have an impact on their party strengths. Those issues must be dealt with in the highest possible forum. I suspect that it will end up with party leaders. It would be useful if the party leaders were in a five-party forum, rather than making 11.00 pm deals in the corridors. These issues are so important to how the Assembly functions in the future, and to the effectiveness and efficiency of Government functions, that they must be treated as substantial. Even if they were brought back to this group, I doubt that the PFG forum could sign off final decisions on them. Mr Attwood: Given that we do not know where this would best be dealt with, and noting all-party progress on this, I propose that the Committee looks forward to all-party consideration to resolve the matter. If we put it in generic terms, whether it goes to the main Committee or to some other forum — [Interruption.] Mr Kennedy: An acceptable form of words might be: “The Committee welcomes the progress made to date and accepts that the issue requires renewed consideration involving all of the political parties.” The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do we have consensus? Mr Attwood: The word “together” should be added to Mr kennedy’s proposal to put over the notion that it should be done collectively. Mr Kennedy: OK. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do we have consensus on that? Mr Kennedy, please read the amended proposal. Mr Kennedy: “The Committee welcomes the progress made to date and accepts that it requires renewed consideration involving all of the political parties collectively.” The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are members content? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We shall proceed to the timing of the devolution of policing and justice. Mr McFarland: It strikes me that that matter falls into the same category because the timing issue is one of Sinn Féin’s key considerations, and the issues of the devolution of policing and justice and the acceptance of the police are key considerations for the DUP. It strikes me that that will be part of detailed discussion at a later stage. Mr S Wilson: There should, at least, be a positive note from the Committee on the issue. The DUP has said that it wants policing and justice to be devolved. Those matters can, however, be devolved effectively only when the community has confidence that they can be managed properly by the Assembly. The term “confidence” is used in the comprehensive agreement and was used by a Sinn Féin member in an earlier discussion. Rather than leave the issue without a resolution, will the Committee agree that policing and justice should be devolved as soon as possible given that there will be public confidence? That would at least show that the Committee takes a positive view and that progress is being made towards the devolution of policing and justice. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do we have consensus? Mr Raymond McCartney: During a previous discussion, we did not have consensus on the devolution of policing and justice when there is public confidence. We articulated the reason for that. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do we, therefore, not have consensus? Mr Attwood: Last week, we proposed that devolution of policing and justice could happen a day, a week or a month after the restoration of the Assembly because a sufficient level of confidence would exist at that time, given that restoration had occurred. I share the view that the Committee must have a positive outlook. The proposal should state that the parties agree that devolution of policing and justice should happen as soon as possible, but that the Committee is unable to define that at present. That is fair to all views. It does not tie parties to any position. It simply means that, as a Committee, we want policing and justice to be devolved as soon as possible, but that we are not in a position to define that yet. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do we have consensus? Mr Raymond McCartney: Sinn Féin wants to return to that matter. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The proposal will remain on the table. Rather than rule it out, the Committee can return to it with possible variations. Mr Kennedy: Keep it in the car park. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Alex Attwood made a proposal on the responsibility for national security, which has not been finalised. Mr Attwood: I believe that we were waiting for information to be made available. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): It has not been made available. Mr Attwood: It is not yet available. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Shall the matter remain on the table? Mr Cobain: Mr Chairman, we have discussed that issue four or five times. There is no possibility of the Chief Constable being responsible for national security. Further discussion is an absolute waste of time. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We have no consensus on the issue. Shall we, therefore, not take it any further? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The Army’s powers with regard to public order matters to be devolved, and the NIO letter dated 15 August 2006, have been circulated. The Committee Clerk: We have received various responses from the Chief Constable during the past couple of weeks. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): There is the issue of parades, the Parades Commission, appointments to it and so on. Mr Attwood: Some of these issues do not sit comfortably together. Army support for the police is a different issue from whether the power of the Chief Constable to challenge a Parades Commission determination should be devolved. 1.00 pm The Committee Clerk: Table 1 attached to the letter of 15 August from the Secretary of State’s office is the template through which we have been working. Of the issues under the heading “Public Order” in that table, these are the outstanding matters that have not yet been finalised by the Committee. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Have we any proposals? Mr S Wilson: The position was fairly clear. On the unionist side there were some reservations, but what was proposed for devolution was more or less acceptable. On the nationalist side there was a blanket consideration that everything should be devolved. If that is still the case, we could work through these individually but still come to the same collective position: one side wants the minimum to be devolved, or what was devolved in the past, while the other wants everything devolved, including some of the matters listed here. We could have the same discussion again. The position was fairly clear, and it should be left as it was. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): If we cannot take it any further, there is no point in parking it; it will just go back to the same position. Will we leave it unresolved? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): On police accountability, Mr McFarland raised the question of a possible conflict of interests between MLAs and members of the Northern Ireland Policing Board. Mr McFarland: Where is the sense in having 10 Assembly Members on the Policing Board, 11 Assembly Members on a Committee here and a Minister? There are 108 MLAs. It was difficult enough in the first Assembly to ensure that Committees were quorate. If you reduce the number of MLAs to 90 or 72, or whatever, and some are off at the Policing Board, you end up with serious problems of staffing Assembly Committees. The other issue is whether, if there is a Minister in charge of policing and an Assembly Committee looking at policing and justice, it is necessary for MLAs to sit on the Policing Board. Political guidance for the Policing Board is needed. That was the great success of it all; it received political input. Parties could provide the political input to the board, instead of MLAs, on the same d’Hondt basis. There would be political input, but not using up valuable MLAs, who could spend Mondays and Tuesdays in Plenary, Wednesdays and Thursdays in Committee and Fridays in their constituencies. Which days of the week are they going to be able to spend on the Policing Board? As colleagues know, originally it was intended to be three days a month, but those who are on the Policing Board will tell you that in some months it can be nearly a full-time job, attending to subcommittees and everything else that goes on. Mr S Wilson: I was a member of the Policing Board when the Assembly was functioning — as was Alan, at one stage. Therefore, I can understand Alan’s reservations about the time commitment. However, parties must work around that. One option is to ensure that MLAs who sit on the Policing Board are not overburdened with commitments to Assembly Committees. It would be a retrograde step to say that public representation on the Policing Board should be at a level below that of MLA. Mr Kennedy: Councillors will love reading that. [Laughter.] Mr S Wilson: Of course, some members of the Policing Board are also councillors. I do not anticipate the degree of overlap that Alan described between the work of an Assembly Committee and the work of the Policing Board. A single ministry would deal with justice and policing matters, so a substantial part of the work in which members would be involved would not overlap with the Policing Board’s work. Furthermore, no Assembly Committee would have the same role as that of the Policing Board. Were the roles the same, members would simply not be able to serve on both because the Committee would be meeting so regularly. The Committee should be concerned with the Minister’s role with regard to policing; the Policing Board should focus on the Chief Constable’s role and hold him accountable for effective and efficient policing. There would be no overlap as those are two completely different roles. Alan is right to highlight the time difficulty. However, parties should manage that problem rather than our making changes to the members appointed. Mr Attwood: I very much welcome the DUP’s clear-headed approach to this. Not to adopt the model recommended by Patten of MLAs sitting on the Policing Board would create tension, if not conflict, among the Assembly structures, the Policing Board and other accountability structures. People would try to broaden their area of operation into areas that, by law — and in accordance with the Patten Report — fall to the Policing Board. The practical way to ensure that that tension does not arise is to ensure that MLAs sit on the Policing Board. That may be logistically demanding given MLAs’ other duties, but, as Sammy said, the situation can be managed. The importance of policing issues has been elevated over many years, therefore it is very important that the highest level of political representation sits on the Policing Board, and that that representation is practical and inclusive. That allows for hands-on responsibility and a shared approach, which is the best approach to adopt if policing is to be sustainable and mature. Policing is best dealt with as a shared undertaking. As Alan said, that approach has worked very well over the last four or five years. The SDLP is firmly of the view that political representation on the Policing Board should be at MLA level. I hope that Alan might reflect on that so that we can reach a consensus. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We could consider separating the two so that members of the Assembly scrutiny Committee could not also be members of the Policing Board. Mr Attwood: Of course they could not be. Mr Ford: I agree with the last couple of points. There would be a difference between the scrutiny Committee’s function and that of the Policing Board. It is a matter of logistics and numbers, but no more than that. If there is to be political representation on the Policing Board, that representation must come from MLAs, because local councillors’ role is to sit on district policing partnerships (DPPs), whatever structures those assume in future. I am not sure whether Alan was suggesting that party nominating officers could nominate unelected party representatives to the Policing Board. Enough party hacks have already been appointed to the Policing Board and DPPs as non-political representatives. Political representatives on the Policing Board should have a political mandate. It should simply be a matter of their managing the difference between their scrutiny role and their membership of the Policing Board. Mr Maskey: I wish somebody would remove the Alliance Party from 100 quangos. Mr Ford: That is history, Alex, not current fact. Mr Kennedy: Alex has said what I was thinking. Mr Ford: If the Ulster Unionists cannot recognise whom the additional nominees to the new Policing Board were, it is probably too late for me to point them out to them. Mr McFarland: I was simply trying to be helpful by identifying potential problems in order that we might deal with them before they hit us. We are happy enough to go with the flow. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Is there not a specific proposal then? Mrs D Kelly: There is. Mr Attwood: The SDLP proposes that political representation on the Policing Board continues to come from MLAs in order to create certainty. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Have we agreement? Mr S Wilson: I wish to make an additional point. Mr Kennedy: Do I see a coat being tugged? Mr S Wilson: There must be a discussion to determine the exact demarcation line between the Policing Board and the scrutiny Committee. Mr A Maginness: Chairman, that would be a matter for Standing Orders. Mr S Wilson: That may be the case, but we should still highlight it in order to avoid any potential conflict of interest. Mr A Maginness: I think that everybody agrees that MLAs who serve on the Policing Board could not be members of the scrutiny Committee, because they would be scrutinising a body of which they were members. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Perhaps this Committee needs to recommend that. Mr McFarland: It is a key issue that must be examined before policing is devolved. How is that interface to take place? If we get it wrong, it could be disastrous. Mr A Maginness: There is a danger that we might over-complicate the issue. I propose that Standing Orders, or the Assembly itself, should address the matter of membership of the scrutiny Committee, and so forth. It can be dealt with at a later date. Let us leave it at that. Mr S Wilson: The scrutiny Committee’s relationship with the Policing Board should also be addressed. Mr A Maginness: Yes. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do we have consensus? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): “Matters to be Devolved — Firearms and Explosives” was dealt with this morning, so we shall move on. Mr McFarland: Chairman, I have one query. In the first edition Hansard of 23 August, I notice that you said that responsibility for firearms — explosives were being discussed, but in Hansard it says “firearms” — will be devolved to the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland (HSENI). I assume that that is an error, because the discussion was about explosives being devolved to HSENI. Was that a typo or a mistake by the member who said it? My understanding was that responsibility for firearms would not be devolved to HSENI. Mrs D Kelly: The confusion may have arisen from the fact that we covered fireworks during our discussion on explosives. That might explain it. Mr McFarland: It may, but it definitely says “firearms” in Hansard. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We will correct that for the final edition Hansard. We were talking about explosives. We shall now move on to “Policing (The Police Ombudsman)”. Mr Paisley Jnr: Could we bring back to the Committee some definition of where the right to appoint rests? If the Ombudsman is an officer of Parliament, will that matter remain with Parliament, or will the appointment of the Police Ombudsman be devolved to the Assembly? 1.15 pm The Committee Clerk: That is item 11 in table 1 of the letter of 15 August from the Secretary of State, under “The Police and policing accountability framework”. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Have we any opinions? Mr Paisley Jnr: If appointment remains with Westminster, there is no role for the Assembly, and the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 would be implemented. A retired judge, or someone of that standing, should be appointed to that office. If that is what Westminster is going to do, then that is the way it is going to do it. If it is going to be devolved to Northern Ireland, as Mr S Wilson proposed, appointment would be by way of cross-community vote, to ensure that the person was accepted across the community. It makes it a very different proposal, depending whether we want to devolve appointment to that office. Mr Attwood: The SDLP has previously outlined that it is opposed to a vote in the Assembly to determine this appointment or various other public appointments. The consequence of such a vote would be a de facto veto. For especially sensitive appointments, that is a power too far. There is a high likelihood of that power being abused and, consequently, damage being done to the integrity of policing, if not that of other public appointments. The power of appointment should be devolved; it should not be a reserved matter, but rather it should be transferred subject to community safeguards. There are various models of community safeguards around this matter and others, such as the renewal of fifty-fifty temporary recruitment provisions or appeals by the Chief Constable to determinations made by the Parades Commission. My party believes that sensitive matters, such as public appointments, should be devolved but with appropriate community safeguards. The SDLP therefore proposes devolution, subject to appropriate community safeguards. Mr Paisley Jnr: We need to know what “appropriate community safeguards” actually means. For example, it could mean that you change the office to have three Ombudspersons — the Planning Service has three heads. We could end up complicating the matter more than it is worth. If Parliament does its job and appoints under the terms of the established legislation, then we thole it and get on with it. Mr Attwood: This is the problem. Under the Nolan principles, there are new standards and processes that must be followed when making public appointments, and that would govern the appointment of the Police Ombudsman, the chairperson of the Human Rights Commission, or whatever the position. Very often, more than one individual is recommended or is eligible for appointment. If the power of appointment were given to the Assembly, that would turn the whole Nolan procedure on its head. It would be a lottery and a veto. The result would be that people would not apply for those posts because they would end up getting battered about on the Floor of the Assembly and be subject to the veto of one or other party or community. The only rational and workable approach is devolution subject to community safeguards. I do not want to get into the whole argument about what the community safeguards are, because there are a range of models. Some people say that it should be left to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and, given that we envisaged that as being a shared institution, then there might be a shared approach to the appointment of high-profile public appointees. Other people say that a different model is needed, for example, when it comes to an appeal against a Parades Commission determination, which could happen in the heart of the summer when people might not be around and quick decisions have to be made. Consequently, there would need to be an accelerated process with community safeguards for dealing with the issue of an appeal against a Parades Commission determination. Different models will probably be required when it comes to fulfilling the standard of community safeguards and the various differing sensitive powers. That is why I was proposing a generic motion of devolution subject to community safeguards. At a subsequent date we will have to work out what model of community safeguard will be required for each of those sensitive decisions. It will not be a case of one size fits all. Mr Raymond McCartney: Sinn Féin agrees with the devolution, and also with the broader discussion on community safeguards. Mr Paisley Jnr: The Committee could leave itself a hostage to fortune on this by agreeing to devolve it, but not agreeing the detail of the community safeguards. The DUP will stick with the position whereby it stays with Westminster as a reserved matter. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The Committee does not have consensus. Those are the outstanding issues as far as the Committee is concerned. However, some issues will come back for consideration. The first draft of the Committee’s report should be available next week. Some of the issues that were sidestepped today can be raised at that meeting and be part of the report. Mr McFarland: How is this to be set out? We have taken decisions on some issues, and agreed some issues that will be implemented some time in the future because they are unknown — for example, support for policing or whatever — and there are issues that are difficult to decide and have been parked for the talks process. How will the issues be set out? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The Clerk can answer that, as he will be the one drawing up the report. The Committee Clerk: We will look at the four main headings set out in the programme of work, make a list of all of the issues that were discussed and come to a conclusion as to what matters were agreed or not agreed. Decisions will not be taken at an official level as to whether a matter was or was not an impediment to devolution. That is the general thrust of it. Mr McFarland: Several issues cut across the Monday, Wednesday and Friday teams. For example, the Wednesday and Friday teams have discussed the issue of parades; the Monday and Wednesday teams have discussed institutional issues. We tend to work in silos, so there might be some merit in examining those overlapping issues before any reports are written. Different teams may take different decisions on the same subject. How do we ensure that the Preparation for Government Committee does not drop any catches? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): That should not happen because members on the Monday, Wednesday and Friday teams — Mr McFarland: “Should not” are two lovely words, Chairman. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We will try to iron out any problems. Once we have the draft reports, we can identify any overlapping issues. Mr McFarland: Is there a proviso that the Committee can revisit certain subjects? The Wednesday team may take a decision that is fundamentally at odds with a decision taken by the Monday team, so certain issues may have to be revisited. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Once we have the draft reports, we can isolate any issues that require further discussion. Some issues may remain unresolved, and the reports will reflect that. Mr S Wilson: Will that be the sole business next week, Chairman? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Some issues are still in the car park, and those will also require further examination. Adjourned at 1.27 pm. |