COMMITTEE ON THE Monday 4 September 2006 Members in attendance for all or part of proceedings: The Committee met in private session from 10.03 am to 10.24 am. The Committee met in open session at 10.24 am. (The Chairman (Mr Wells) in the Chair.) The Chairman (Mr Wells): The suggested wording for debate on 11 and possibly 12 September is: “That the Assembly approves the first report from the Committee on the Preparation for Government on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland; agrees that it should be submitted to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland; and calls on the Secretary of State to take action to implement the recommendations in the Report.” Do members have any thoughts on that? Mr M McGuinness: Sinn Féin has some thoughts on these matters. I am conscious that this is September; the two Governments made it clear that the principal purpose of establishing a PFG Committee and, indeed, recalling the Assembly, was to put an Executive in place. So we are somewhat disappointed that we have not had a plan of action from the two Governments for putting the Executive in place by their deadline of 24 November. We are seeking meetings with the Secretary of State and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dermot Ahern, to try to ascertain whether they have indeed a plan of action or a schedule to ensure that the institutions are restored by that date. The public needs to have confidence that the two Governments are working to achieve a successful outcome to the work of the recent past. We are conscious that time is now short. I recall a conversation with a unionist insider in the spring — I will not say which party he was from — who said that none of this gets serious until September. I am working on the basis that members regard today’s meeting as the beginning of a serious effort to bring about the restoration of the institutions that people throughout the island of Ireland voted for in 1998. Until we see from both the Secretary of State and the Minister for Foreign Affairs a plan of action that is designed to bring about a successful outcome vis-à-vis the restoration of the institutions — given that their stated priority from the beginning was that the recall of the Assembly was to achieve that — it is premature for us to agree to further Assembly meetings. If we get a schedule that represents a serious approach to the restoration of the institutions that the people voted for, we will have an open mind about our approach to plenary meetings in the weeks ahead. We hope that that can be resolved this week so that we can face up to — The Chairman (Mr Wells): May I interrupt you with a procedural point? We have agreed the report. We could move back into public session, with Hansard reporting our proceedings. As your contribution went on it suddenly dawned on me that that is the issue you are raising. What do members feel about that? Do we want to go back on the record, as it were? Mr P Robinson: We should go back onto the record from when Mr McGuinness started to speak. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I think that is right. Mr M McGuinness: Absolutely. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I have no problem with that. Mr M McGuinness: I was contributing to this on the basis that it was on the record. The Chairman (Mr Wells): From now on every word will be published. Mr M McGuinness: This is serious business. We are in a serious period; we are effectively in the final phase of the effort to see the institutions restored by 24 November. We believe that all parties are entitled to be given some plan of action, some schedule, which will clearly show that the two Governments are serious about bringing about the restoration of these institutions by 24 November. In that context we will approach the business of whether or not there should be Assembly plenary meetings on the basis of the reports that arise from the work of the Committees that we have been involved in. We would do that in a very serious way. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I take it then that you are opposing, not just the wording of the motion, but the principles of it. 10.30 am Mr M McGuinness: It is a question of timing. Principally, Sinn Féin seeks a plan of action and schedule from both the British and Irish Governments that will reassure not only Sinn Féin and other parties at this Committee but also — and more importantly — the general public, who are hammered almost every week with threats and proposals for huge hikes in rates. Every party is conscious that people on the street are, rightly, in uproar at many of the decisions being taken by direct rule Ministers — decisions over which we have no control and which impose massive financial burdens on the people that members represent in every single constituency. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That contribution has provoked several members to indicate that they wish to speak. I will go round the table by party, starting with Mr Robinson, on to Mr McNarry and Mrs Long, etc. Mr P Robinson: First, I resist any implication contained in the last remarks that the work that has been done thus far, both here in the PFG Committee and in the economic subgroup, was not serious. Members have engaged in serious and important work, as they should. The Assembly’s job is to prepare for devolution. This Committee is an essential part of that preparation, not only in relation to the particular proposal that we are considering now, but also in relation to issues concerning the institutions, policing and human rights that are discussed here. Frankly, no schedule is needed in order to recognise that all of that important and necessary work needs to be dealt with and, as far as possible, agreed. The DUP has a schedule, which is not based on the calendar but on what is required for a system of government that can benefit the community in Northern Ireland. Included in our schedule are institutional changes to the structures of the Assembly and to North/South and east-west structures. We have also clearly indicated the need for a financial package. Events of the last week emphasised what I said at a previous meeting of the PFG Committee: if members want devolution to bed down in Northern Ireland, we must have the ability to make a difference to some of the key decisions that have been taken, whether on water charging, rates or other issues. Tinkering with those decisions, as has been suggested over the last day or two, will not make much difference to a community that wants to see a real difference. If devolution cannot deliver change, difference and improvement, people will become less than enamoured with the Assembly and the Executive. The permanent ending of republican paramilitary and criminal activity is included in the DUP’s schedule. We do not merely want a tactical cessation for a convenient period of time; we want to ensure that it is permanent. If there is to be a stable and lasting Assembly, it is essential that all those issues are resolved. The last thing that we should do is to plaster over the cracks and hope that everything will hold together in a restored Executive. We have to make sure that we do not have constant suspensions and collapses, and that we have an Executive and an Assembly capable of lasting when the political storms blow. All of this work of preparing to have a stable Assembly and Executive is essential; however, it is not dictated by the clock or the calendar but by changes that have to take place out on the ground, and over which Sinn Féin perhaps have more control than some of the rest of us. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I shall go round by party. Dr McCrea wishes to say a few words, and if any Ulster Unionist wants to come in after that, that is fine. Dr McCrea: I am looking at the draft minutes of the the Business Committee meeting of 4 July 2005, and I notice that in Paragraph 3:3 it states: “Members noted the Secretary of State had referred the matter of discussion of economic issues to the Preparation for Government Committee (PFGC) under Section 1:1 of the 2006 Act and had directed it under Paragraph 4:1 of the Schedule 1 to the Act to set up a subgroup and report back to The Assembly in September.” I stress the word “directed”. That statement is in those draft minutes. The Secretary of State has directed this Committee to report back to the Assembly in September. The Committee will report on the economic package and therefore it is relevant. The remarks of Sinn Féin members show that they still have not woken up to reality and that they close their minds and hearts to the issues that are cardinal and right at the very heart of whether we will see restoration of an Administration and the setting up of an Executive in Northern Ireland. Issues such as criminality; the money from the bank robbery; weapons; policing, and support for the security forces, who actively engage those who still bring terrorism on this community, might as well not exist. Those issues must be dealt with. Apart from those who engage with us in a voluntary capacity, Sinn Féin and the IRA together have a cardinal responsibility. Unless they wake up to that, they are simply making noises that they know fine well contribute to instability and ensure that we cannot, clearly and unequivocally, have a devolved Government on democratic lines. Those issues have still to be dealt with, and they will not be run away from. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Let me clarify a procedural issue before we move on to Mr McNarry. The printed report is now with the Business Office. The Secretary of State has the power to intervene and order that it be made the subject of debate at the Plenary, if he so decides. It is important that Members realise that; however, he cannot compel Members to attend that debate. Mr P Robinson: May I put on the record that, from our point of view, the proposal is satisfactory. We can always tinker around with it and seek to amend it later, but it covers all of the necessary aspects. Mr McNarry: I draw Members’ attention to one technical aspect of the report. It calls on the Secretary of State to take action to implement the recommendations of the report. We have already taken action on recommendations 17 and 18. Technically, I want to tidy that up because that is something that the subgroup asked us to do by way of extending their mandate. That is only a minor issue. With regard to intervention by the Secretary of State, he has intervened a lot in this Committee, particularly on aspects where it has failed to reach consensus. You have only to read through the correspondence and you will see a litany, where, as I pointed out, the Secretary of State actually directs. One thing the Secretary of State perhaps cannot do, but certainly has not looked at, is directing people to come in to the Assembly for a debate. Regrettably, there is one party that has no desire or wish to come in to the Assembly — apart from one appearance, and a brief appearance at that. I endorse the view of the essential need to prepare — if the Committee is serious — for a sustainable and lasting Assembly and Executive. If that does not happen, then we will be in for the “magic roundabout” stuff that my party endured for a number of years. A question arises from Mr McGuinness’s statement — if it was a statement. Does Sinn Féin’s opinion on debating the report of the Subgroup on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland also apply to the other issues under consideration by the Committee, such as the institutions, policing and justice, etc? Should it come to pass that reports were formulated on those issues and they were to be debated in the Assembly, would Mr McGuinness’s statement apply then? I noticed that there was a caveat, however, about having to wait a week for something or other. I am disappointed by Mr McGuinness’s statement. When the Committee asked about Sinn Féin’s attitude to debates in the Chamber, Mr McGuinness gave as near to an equivocal answer as one could extract, saying that it would be a matter of honour for Sinn Féin to debate the report of the subgroup. I do not have Hansard in front of me, although I am sure that it could be produced. Those sentiments — again under questioning — were endorsed by his colleague Conor Murphy, who read from Hansard at the time in response to a question from me about how serious Sinn Féin was in giving its word that it would debate in the Assembly Chamber, and if his party would be there. It is regrettable if what Mr McGuinness has said this morning — after having given consent to the report — proves that he had no intention of going into the Assembly, and may never have had any intention of going into the Assembly to debate with his colleagues on the economic future of our country. I will let others make a judgement on his reasons for that decision, but it is a fine abdication of responsibility. Sinn Féin talked about the Government being serious, and Mr McGuinness gave the timing as part of his reason for not agreeing to the proposal. He has known the timing of the report all along. His party contributed to giving the subgroup an extra week. One does not need to be a clairvoyant to work out where it would go from there. The timing issue would appear to be a non-issue. However, if timing is an issue, surely the rest of the Committee have a right to ask Sinn Féin how serious it is about its work. Mr McFarland: I waxed lyrical at one of the Committee’s previous meetings about this. Sinn Féin is not playing the game. One could understand a bit of messing around in the early days. However, once the Committee got into substantial work, Sinn Féin said time and time again that if useful work were done, then it would take part in plenaries discussing that useful work. The logic of what Sinn Féin is saying is that it does not believe that either the subgroup or this Committee has carried out useful work. If, as a matter of principle, it refuses to take part in a debate on the subgroup report, presumably it will refuse to debate any of the work that the Committee has carried out to date. Sinn Féin is definitely not playing the game. There was a clear understanding that if everybody operated in good faith, we would get somewhere. 10.45 am I am worried that it will be another case of Sinn Féin overplaying its hand. We suffered in the past when Sinn Féin made a wrong judgement and overplayed its hand, as its members know themselves. It would be most unfortunate if the party judged this situation wrongly and overplayed its hand again. There was a clear understanding that we would all play the game in good faith, talk in this Committee all summer — regardless of the cost to us all as individuals — and have a debate at the end of summer, with, as Mr Robinson said, the report perhaps being the basis for talks in the autumn. That seemed a very sensible way to proceed. However, Sinn Féin is now playing sillies and refusing to take part in plenaries, having said before that if useful work was done, Sinn Féin would not be found wanting. There is now a danger of the party’s good faith being found wanting. Mrs Long: I want to raise several issues. The Alliance Party wishes to make it very clear that, from the outset, it has never taken any of this process other than seriously. Our members were certainly not playing with this process over the summer, or taking it lightly. We were not waiting for an elusive September deadline. That may have been important to other people, but it was certainly was not the case with us. The clear understanding was that the work carried out in this Committee and in the economic subgroup would lead to a plenary session. That was outlined in the Government’s original timetable and in the Secretary of State’s direction. There is no question about that. Moreover, this Committee endorsed that when it sought to have the plenaries delayed for a week. Martin McGuinness used the word “premature”; no one suggested that it would be premature to have a plenary on 11 September when we asked the Secretary of State to consider that as a date for the first plenary. It seems strange that that would now be considered premature when it was not considered so a number of weeks ago. Other members have mentioned that the Secretary of State can simply direct us to have a debate in the Chamber, but that would not be the most edifying outcome. It does not set a particularly good tone for discussions in the Committee or, indeed, for any future negotiations, if members appear to agree to do something and then row back from it just as it is about to happen. We must consider that. I am particularly surprised that Sinn Féin is now going to exercise some kind of veto over the plenary sessions, having had substantive discussions over the summer. I find it incredible that it will provoke a direct rule Minister from Westminster to interfere needlessly in our business, especially given that that party professes such distaste for such meddling. I appeal to those members who may have reservations about the plenary to consider that their actions may cause members of other parties — who have participated in this process in good faith — to have reservations too. We have some concerns about the wording of the proposal, as it calls on only the Secretary of State to take action to implement the recommendations in the report. At the very least, our aspiration should be that a devolved Administration should take forward the recommendations. However, even if that does not happen, the report recommends some level of participation. Recommendation 10 states: “That there should be a discussion with Ministers on alternative uses for the £30m set aside for an energy subsidy.” That implies that there would be discussion between Assembly Members and Ministers. Assembly Members who wish to take this forward in a constructive way should be able to do so. However, I do not want to elaborate on the detail of the wording when we have not yet managed to agree on the principle. That perhaps should be explored in a bit more depth before we move on. The Chairman (Mr Wells): David, do you wish to add anything? Mr Ford: I never need to add anything after Naomi has spoken. [Laughter.] Dr Farren: Naomi has taken the words out of my mouth with respect to my opinion on the motion. I made a similar note about what our aspirations should be if we are working towards the earliest possible restoration of the institutions. I also noted that any responsibility or input that the Executive, Assembly and the other institutions have for enhancing our economic opportunities should be reflected in the motion. There are difficulties in a Committee of this size trying to phrase a motion, but we should consider that aspiration. Martin McGuinness has been absent over the past few weeks, so he has not taken part in recent discussions. I trust that his colleagues have not been engaging in anything other than serious business. I have taken reasonable satisfaction and, indeed, optimism — so far as that is possible in our circumstances — from the work that has been done in the Committee’s various formats, particularly the Subgroup on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland. That shows that we can create a positive atmosphere — albeit not always cordial — in which to discuss the issues before us. That atmosphere, regardless of the issues, demonstrates the potential to establish a greater sense of confidence that the PFG Committee might deliver. There may be an increase in momentum over the next few weeks, but that does not suggest that we have been anything but serious over the past few weeks. Martin McGuinness made a point about the calendar. One will see from previous communiqués from the two Governments that a reasonably detailed calendar was published noting all of the major milestones up until 24 November. That calendar accompanied those communiqués. I am not sure what more is expected. Degrees of commitment and determination are required, but they cannot be specified in a calendar. Martin McGuinness should, therefore, look at the calendar with his colleagues and see that it meets the requirements as set out by the Governments. I am being as positive as I can about what Sinn Féin is saying. There may be a chink of light, and its members do not appear to be making the absolute refusals that they made last week. Sinn Féin seems to be pushing in the direction of more delay, but its members say that they are anxious to see matters expedited. Therefore, there is a contradiction that must be resolved. I do not want us to find ourselves back in the ignominious situation in which a Secretary of State determines when a group of Irish men and women should debate any matter, not least the matters of significance that are contained in the economy report. Following the Committee’s work and the atmosphere in which it was conducted, I would like to think that we could come to an agreement. The Executive summary of the report states: “It is hoped that the report will form a basis for a constructive and informed Assembly debate in September 2006 and that its recommendations will throw some light on the many challenges that face the economy.” I think that doing so will produce greater confidence, not only among the Committee, but among our colleagues in the Assembly. The ingredient that is sorely lacking is confidence in one another; it was severely damaged by the events that led to suspension, and by subsequent events. We must restore some of that confidence and arrive at a working relationship that would make restoration not only possible, but stable. Mr PJ Bradley: Aside from the work done by political parties in the past few months, many respected and important representatives from organisations such as the Ulster Farmers’ Union, InterTradeIreland, the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and the Business Alliance gave us their valuable time and provided evidence to the subgroup. They are bound to feel disappointed that we cannot reach agreement on how to proceed with the report, and they may be reluctant to give evidence to Committees in the future. For their sakes, and out of respect for their valuable contributions, we should try to seek unanimity on how to take the report forward. Mr M McGuinness: Peter Robinson’s first contribution to this discussion knocked out of the water everything that Seán Farren said regarding the Government calendar. Peter Robinson said that the DUP schedule was not based on any calendar. That highlights Sinn Féin’s problem vis-à-vis the DUP’s intentions. For him to say that the public were wondering whether the IRA’s actions last year amounted to a tactical cessation is almost laughable. The overwhelming majority of people on this island do not regard the IRA’s actions last year as a tactical approach. What the IRA did last year was massive: it ended its campaign and dealt with the issue of arms to the satisfaction of Gen de Chastelain, the British and Irish Governments and the wide range of international opinion. That has had a massive impact on the entire community. Willie McCrea referred to the Secretary of State’s direction that the economic subgroup should report to the Assembly by September. Nothing that I have said will prevent that from happening. There are four weeks left in September. It is a bit rich coming from Willie McCrea, given that the Secretary of State also directed the Committee to set up subgroups to deal with matters such as policing and justice. The DUP refused to set up those subgroups. David McNarry said that Sinn Féin did not want to participate in the Assembly, but nothing could be further from the truth. Sinn Féin is serious about being involved in a programme and a process that sees the restoration of the institutions, which the people of Ireland, and a majority in the North, voted for overwhelmingly. We wish to be involved in meaningful work, which will restore the institutions by the date set by the two Governments — 24 November 2006. Alan McFarland said that Sinn Féin is not playing the game. You are right, Alan, we are not playing a game here. This is serious, and we will not be involved in stringing out this process or going along with the DUP’s stated intention of breaking through the 24 November deadline to some time in never-never land either next year or the year after, or possibly never. 11.00 am It is time for us all to get serious. The Committee must consider carefully what I have said. It is quite reasonable to expect a schedule from the two Governments for restoration of the institutions by 24 November. I cannot envisage how they could refuse to develop such a plan this week. If a plan is developed, Sinn Féin will give serious consideration to attending Assembly plenaries. Therefore, it is a matter of time and of whether we can establish during the next few days that both Governments have a decisive plan. People have said that we might find ourselves in Scotland on 9 September — we might find ourselves in Timbuktu on 9 September. No one appears to know where we are going or what will happen when we get there. We have been in hothouse situations before, only to find out in the aftermath that the unionist parties are not prepared to restore the institutions. Sinn Féin is serious. It will play a positive and constructive part and will work with all the other parties around the table. However, Peter Robinson’s initial remarks are revealing. They flatly contradict what Seán Farren said. It is clear from Peter Robinson’s remarks that the DUP is not working to the same calendar as the rest of us. Sinn Féin’s perspective is, therefore, that it is important that a marker is put down for everyone. We will not play the DUP’s game. We will stand up to the DUP’s attempts to destroy the Good Friday Agreement; to break through the 24 November deadline; and, after that deadline has passed, to bring us to a situation in which we are scratching our heads and wondering where we go from here. Mr P Robinson: I am even more confused by Mr McGuinness’s second contribution. His first contribution was based on the principle that the Governments must set out a schedule. Any remarks that I might make are, therefore, irrelevant, since it is not the DUP’s commitment to any schedule that is being sought but that of the two Governments. That is strange when the British Government have openly indicated what their schedule and intentions are. They indicated not only the deadline that they wanted met but the process that would lead to that, and that included sittings of the Assembly and useful business being done in the Preparation for Government Committee. As William said, that is indicated in the Secretary of State’s directive on the economic subgroup. The Government’s schedule is clear: the business of the Committee is to proceed to negotiations with the Secretary of State and, presumably, others during September, and with the Prime Minister and others during October. Everybody knows what the schedule is; it is not a surprise. I am sure that Sinn Féin members have read newspapers other than ‘Daily Ireland’, so they will have caught sight of the Government’s intentions and schedule and therefore know what they are. The party is grasping around for an excuse that explains its bizarre behaviour and its unwillingness to discuss matters in the Chamber that it is quite prepared to consider in Committee. How are we to understand the logic that, although it is right for Sinn Féin members to be involved in the preparation of a report, it is wrong for them to approve a motion in the Assembly that asks the Secretary of State to deal with matters in the report for which he has responsibility. That seems to be bizarre behaviour. There has been no change in the DUP’s position, which I outlined this morning. It has been consistent. We are not bound by anyone’s diary. We want there to be a change of events out in the country. Republicans should not be surprised that the rest of the world does not see everything through their green-tinted glasses. There are people who do not trust them, because they have been caught before. The republican movement does not always do what it says it will. There have been tactical cessations in republican violence in the past. Reducing the violence by several levels was conducive to its political aspirations during elections. When the President of the United States visited Northern Ireland, it was helpful for the republican movement to turn it down a level or two. Tactical cessation of violence is part of the policy of the republican movement, as is tactical use of the armed struggle. People who have read internal IRA documents about that will, unsurprisingly, recognise that that tactical use may be turned on again at some stage. Therefore it is important that we are sure that there is some permanence. Ultimately, only the behaviour of the republican movement over time will be the proper judge of that. There have been many signals that there has been a reduction in paramilitary and criminal activity, but there are also signals that that process is not complete. Excuses have been made that any such activity has not been sanctioned; nevertheless, as those things are still happening in the community, there is a great deal of confusion. I understand that the Independent Monitoring Commission (IMC) may say this week that it recognises that the IRA has ended its paramilitary and criminal activity. That would be progress, but people will still seek explanations for certain things that have been happening. We could list those things if that were helpful, but I do not think that it would be. Dr McCrea outlined the Secretary of State’s direction, not because he believes that the Secretary of State should be obeyed — each of us recognises that we have our own policies and we will do what we deem to be in the best interests of those whom we represent — but because, ultimately, the Secretary of State will determine whether the Assembly will sit and what it will debate. The importance of William’s remarks is, therefore, to identify the fact that the Secretary of State would have great difficulty in not proceeding with a debate on this issue. Therefore the only thing that we are discussing is whether Sinn Féin will be present when this matter comes before the Assembly. If it wants to turn its back on those people who worked hard during the preparation of this report, and if it wants to stick its finger in the eye of all those who gave evidence, that is a matter of tactics for Sinn Féin, and I am sure that it will be judged upon it. Finally, I find it hard to listen to Sinn Féin talking about the need to comply with some date that Government has set down. No party more than Sinn Féin has been busting through deadlines and stringing out events over the decades in Northern Ireland. I will not take a homily from Sinn Féin on the importance of keeping to Government deadlines and keeping a programme or process to a tight timescale. Sinn Féin is happy to string things out and to break deadlines when that is helpful to its political ideals. The Democratic Unionist Party has a responsibility to the unionist community to ensure that the outcome of this process will benefit the whole community and will be capable of lasting and providing stable, effective, efficient Government for the people of Northern Ireland. Those are the criteria under which we will operate. If the outcome is not ready on 24 November, we will hold out until it is. That is simply good political common sense. Dr Farren: Martin McGuinness’s central point earlier was that Sinn Féin needed clarification on a schedule for restoration, and that until such clarification was forthcoming, Sinn Féin would not commit to taking part in any Assembly debates. However, a schedule already clearly exists. It outlines the major milestones until 24 November and what is to happen on 25 November. Therefore, the real issue cannot be the absence of a schedule: perhaps it is the absence of further detail in the schedule. From the start, this Committee has, broadly speaking, worked within the context of that schedule, and Sinn Féin has not objected to that until now. As this matter affects us all, perhaps Sinn Féin will tell us what further information and detail it requires the existing schedule to contain. That may enable us to gain a little more understanding of the party’s difficulties with it. Mr McFarland: I wish to ask Martin a few questions. Let us suppose that the Secretary of State reads this report tomorrow morning and produces a schedule for Sinn Féin — even though, as Seán says, a schedule already exists. In that case, is Martin saying that Sinn Féin would be encouraged to take part in a debate? Would the party be almost definite about taking part or simply be more likely to do so; or, as Martin said originally, would the party still have to meet with the Secretary of State and the Irish Foreign Minister? Would Sinn Féin have to take time out to meet them at the end of this week, next week or the week after, or would all be well if the Secretary of State put a schedule into Martin’s hands tomorrow morning, which I am sure the team could organise? 11.15 am Dr McCrea: In one sense, I am surprised by Sinn Féin’s new confidence in the Secretary of State. He would be very pleased that he has engendered such confidence within the party that all that is needed is a little word or sheet from him and all is well. However, the reality is different. Sinn Féin has realised that it wrong-footed itself at last Monday’s meeting. The party spokesman on that day, Conor Murphy — who seems to be taking a back seat at the moment — put the boot into all the Sinn Féin members who sat on the economic subgroup and who signed off the report. Those members had agreed that it was acceptable and worthy of debate. However, Conor Murphy dismissed that report, and those present at the meeting realised the extent to which he dismissed it. He claimed that sufficient work had not been carried out and so forth. The truth is that Sinn Féin did not want to enter into debate because that is one area in which Sinn Féin finds itself at a loss. However, the party recognised that it wrong-footed itself and that its position was not defensible in the community. Therefore, the party has tried to soften its approach somewhat — which is a strange mode for Martin McGuinness — by claiming that if it got this schedule it would consider a debate. That is the very opposite to what was said at the last meeting, at which there was no mention of a schedule or anything else. The party’s position was that it would not play the game in the Assembly unless all the preparation for government issues were settled. Sinn Féin members have since realised that their position is not defensible — and neither it is. Martin McGuinness tries to tell us that what the IRA did had a massive impact and closes his eyes to the criminality and to the most recent IMC report, which found that IRA criminality was still continuing and that leading members of Sinn Féin were involved in that criminality. Even though the IMC will state, could state that there has been a change in that criminality, it cannot wipe out what has already taken place. Nor can anyone wipe out the fact that Sinn Féin turns it on and off tactically whenever it wants to. There is nothing surprising in that; because the party is under the scrutiny of London, Dublin, and, internationally, America and Europe, it has to put the screws on the folks on the ground. The truth is that the IRA is a terrorist organisation that is still intact. Had it turned its back on its terrorist and criminal past, as some people have proclaimed, there is no reason whatsoever that it should still be intact. Mr Robinson has made it abundantly clear that while a schedule from Tony Blair or Bertie Ahern might give succour to Martin McGuinness and the troops of Sinn Féin, it will not tie everybody else’s hands: nobody will bow in submission to the dictates of those people. The DUP has made election promises to the public that define its democratic credentials. It will not renege on those for either Bertie Ahern or Tony Blair. Martin McGuinness may get some crumb of comfort from them, and hide behind them for whatever reason, such as putting off a debate that his party might refuse to participate in anyway. The subgroup, and this Committee, approved the report unanimously. As far as the DUP is concerned, the report must be debated. I referred to the Secretary of State because I have read the minute in which he states that he had referred the matter to the Assembly and that he “had directed” the Committee. Hence, we are not waiting for him to direct us; he has already stipulated that the Committee will address the Assembly on the subgroup’s report in September. It is up to members to decide what they want to do with the report. The DUP’s decisions have always honoured the promises that it has made to the public. Mr M McGuinness: I want to make it clear that I have made no negative judgements about the work that has been done by the subgroup. People must understand that the work that is done by the Committee and the subgroup cannot be separated from the overall objective that was stated by the two Governments at the start of the process, which is that the principal purpose of the Preparation for Government Committee is the restoration of the Assembly, the establishment of a power-sharing Executive, and the reinstatement of the North/South Ministerial Council — an important all-Ireland dimension of the Good Friday Agreement. The danger is that we will end up in a situation where people believe that the only work that needs to be done is that of the Preparation for Government Committee and the subgroup — valuable though that is, particularly if further consensus can be reached on the important matters that we must deal with. We must not separate what the Committee and the subgroup have achieved from the overall intention that was stated by the two Governments at the outset of the process, which is that the principal purpose of bringing back the Assembly is to reinstate the institutions that were agreed on Good Friday, 1998. In terms of Willie McCrea’s comments, it is quite significant that he even attributes remarks to the IMC that the IMC never made. Alan queried how this matter could be processed during the course of this week. We can work it out vis à vis meetings with the Secretary of State or the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dermot Ahern. All of the other parties can discuss with the Governments at any time how we take things forward. Sinn Féin will do the same; we will see whether we can get what we are seeking during the course of this week. That is why I think it is important that we should reconsider the motion next Monday. We have time to do that, and it is the sensible way to proceed. Seán Farren asked what detail Sinn Féin might derive, beyond what the Governments have flagged up publicly, from further discussion with the Governments. Let us wait and see. Sinn Féin certainly has its own view of how this should be taken forward. We think it is important to discuss with the Governments the need to ensure that there is a realistic and meaningful plan of action or schedule to ensure that the institutions are up and running by 24 November. That is all the more pertinent given the remarks made by the DUP delegation this morning to the effect that they are not bound by the calendar date flagged up publicly by the two Governments. Willie McCrea — Mr McFarland: Will Martin take a question? Mr M McGuinness: I will finish this point and then I will take a question. Willie McCrea has consistently said, from the day and hour the PFG Committee was set up, that the DUP would not be bound by any deadline. That clearly represents a massive challenge, not just to the Irish and British Governments, but to every other party in the Committee that stated that it wants to see the institutions restored by 24 November. Mr McFarland: My understanding was that the Secretary of State had put the plenary meeting back a week, so that it should take place next Monday. I am confused as to how, if this issue is to be debated next Monday, we can decide next Monday what the motion should be. The motion must be submitted to the Business Committee tomorrow. Mr M McGuinness: I am saying that we should reconsider the motion next Monday, vis-à-vis when it is put forward for the Business Committee’s consideration as regards a debate in the Assembly. I am not arguing against Assembly debates on this issue; I am arguing for a recognition by the Committee that the work of the Committee cannot be taken in isolation from the overall stated purpose of the two Governments from the beginning, that work was to prioritise bringing back the Assembly, electing an Executive and restoring the power sharing and all-Ireland institutions. It is crucial that the work of the Committee and those overall aims should progress simultaneously. Mr McFarland: So what you said earlier about just needing a list of dates was not exactly correct? Even if the Secretary of State got a list to you tomorrow morning, you are saying that Sinn Féin believes that the debate should not take place next Monday but should be delayed for a week or more, because at next Monday’s meeting, the Committee should examine the motion, and send it to the Business Committee the next day for debate on 18 September. That is difficult for us, because my understanding was that the debate on the economy was to be followed rapidly by three more debates, on the other three reports that are being produced. Some of those reports are fairly massive and debate could take two days for each. Perhaps you are saying that you are not going to agree to any of these debates, in which case we can keep putting this back for as long as we wish to. However, what you said originally was that you needed a timetable, and I asked you whether if you got one tomorrow morning that would do the trick. I sense that it would not do the trick, because it is not about a timetable — it is about trying to put off the plenary meeting and not have plenary meetings. Mr M McGuinness: You should not presume my intention. Mr McFarland: That is the logic of what you said. Mr M McGuinness: It seems to be a recurring feature for some parties to attempt to analyse Sinn Féin’s position, just as Willie McCrea wrongly attributed remarks to the IMC. Based on what I said earlier, you have decided that Sinn Féin’s purpose is to delay for as long as possible, or even prevent, further debates and discussions in plenary session. I have not said that. Sinn Féin is prepared to consider debates taking place and participation in those debates. However, none of us have spoken to Peter Hain recently, and I have been told that he will not be back here until next weekend, so we are at a disadvantage. Dermot Ahern is probably on holiday. It is legitimate for us, particularly given the assertion by some unionist insiders that things will get serious from September, to seek clarification. We want a serious plan from the two Governments to achieve their stated objective, which is to bring back the Assembly to elect an Executive. Sinn Féin wants that to happen before 24 November, and it is legitimate for us to ask both Governments to explain what will happen between now and then. Do you know if you are going to Scotland on 9 September? Do you know if you are going to Timbuktu on 9 September? Is it 9 September? How long will we be there? What is going to happen? Will the DUP engage with Sinn Féin in a serious way? There are many questions that remain unanswered. Dr Farren: Martin, you run the risk of exasperating the lot of us. You seem to think that the existing schedule is not detailed enough, but you have not shared any of your concerns or proposals for how it could be made more comprehensive. I do not have a copy of the schedule in front of me, but it may be helpful if the secretariat could share it with us, because it is reasonably detailed. I do not care whether we are going to Scotland or Timbuktu next month — the business must be done wherever we are. Mr M McGuinness: Exactly. Dr Farren: The location does not matter. Mr M McGuinness: Exactly. Dr Farren: Therefore, when you ask whether we need an answer to the question about whether anyone knows where the talks will be held, the answer is “no”. All we need to know is that we still have the opportunity to discuss the issues. It would be helpful if Sinn Féin could tell us what details it believes are missing from the schedule, because we would all be affected by any amendment to it. I accept the general milestones that are in the schedule up until 24 November, and the two Governments have made it clear what they will do if the deadline is not met. For the life of me, I cannot see what is needed over and beyond what is there. However, if Sinn Féin has any difficulties or questions that it wants answers to, perhaps it could share them with us. Sinn Féin may have noticed a serious gap in the schedule, and the rest of us may have been fools not to see it. Therefore we would also want answers to Sinn Féin’s concerns. However, all you have said is that you want a meeting with Peter Hain and Dermot Ahern. Why on earth do we want meetings with Peter Hain and Dermot Ahern to tell us what to do? For God’s sake, I thought that you and I were Irishmen and that we wanted to do business with other Irishmen and Irishwomen, instead of always being put in the ignominious position of being told what to do by a British Secretary of State. Mr M McGuinness: Will you take an interjection? Dr Farren: No. You can have one when I finish. I thought that you were for breaking the connection with those people, instead of tying it tighter. Mr M McGuinness: Seán, it may have escaped your notice that a British Secretary of State suspended the institutions against our will. Dr Farren: We want to put an end to that nonsense. Mr M McGuinness: A British Secretary of State has established what is called the Hain Assembly for which, effectively, he decides everything that goes on. The very fact that you are sitting there is proof of that. Do not lecture me about Irishmen and British Ministers. The British Government suspended the people’s institutions against the will of the people a number of years ago. I think that it is quite — The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are you asking a question? Mr M McGuinness: He has finished. Dr Farren: Yes, I asked a question. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The tone was beginning to get quite harsh. Dr Farren: It was an expression of exasperation, as I said. 11.30 am The Chairman (Mr Wells): Have you finished, Mr McGuinness? Mr M McGuinness: No, I have not finished. Mr P Robinson: Was Mr McGuinness the next on the list to speak? The Chairman (Mr Wells): No. Mr McNarry was the next member on the list to speak. Mr P Robinson: Mr McGuinness should not have started. Mr M McGuinness: After Willie McCrea, since you came in here this morning you have interjected a few times yourself, Peter. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Any interjections tend to be short questions or observations. If Mr McGuinness wishes to speak, I can certainly put his name on the list. Mr M McGuinness: I do wish to speak. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I will ask Mr Ford to speak, because the Alliance Party has not had a fair crack of the whip this morning. I will then ask the Ulster Unionist grouping to speak, because there are several points to come, followed by the DUP grouping, then Mr McGuinness. Mr Ford: I welcome Sinn Féin’s actions of earlier today. When it agreed the report of the Subgroup on the Economic Challenges Facing Northern Ireland and agreed that it would be published as the report of this Committee, it clearly acknowledged the work that the subgroup has done over the summer. The talk about things getting serious in September has been entirely disproved by the amount of serious work that many of us in this room have been doing for many weeks in the full Committee and in the subgroup when others were not necessarily here. When Sinn Féin accepted the report and agreed that it should be published, it actually acknowledged that what it said last week about the report not being serious enough was wrong. It is a very serious report: it deals with critical issues, and it merits an Assembly debate. However, the proposal today that we cannot have an Assembly debate because we do not have a schedule from the Governments is absolute nonsense. We may be unhappy with the schedule from the Governments, and we may think that not everything is in it, but when the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach came to this Building they set out the timetable of operations. Not until today have we heard any complaint from Sinn Féin that there is something fundamentally wrong with the timetable. A few weeks ago Sinn Féin was prepared to accept that we should delay the plenary meeting for a week to ensure that a proper and full report was available for debate. The party went along with everybody else on that. Now it is saying that because of another issue entirely it is not prepared to deal with an Assembly debate. I notice that the serious questions that Seán Farren and Naomi Long posed have not been answered and that all that we have heard have been diatribes against the DUP. Those may be justifiable at times, but on this occasion it is easy for Sinn Féin to attack the DUP because that is one way of avoiding serious questions from others. What are the problems with the timetable? How is the Committee expected to resolve those problems when Sinn Féin has not mentioned them before today? What possible benefit will it be to have a timetable for operations while insisting on putting things back a further week for no good reason whatever? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Several Ulster Unionists wish to speak, and this is their opportunity to do so. I will then call the DUP. Mr McGuinness can answer, and we need to move to the proposals after that. Mr McNarry: I agree with David Ford. This is a great deviation from the remit of the PFG Committee. It has been long established that its remit was to scope and discuss. Martin McGuinness wants to now introduce a form of negotiations with a Government that are not represented at this table. It is fair that he raises serious concerns, and it is interesting to hear those. However, to use them to stop a debate on the economy is quite a facile Sinn Féin tactic. We are preparing, not negotiating; the Government are not sitting around this table. The proposal is not controversial. I have heard no one object to it in any great detail. The only objection comes from one party that does not want to debate it in the Assembly Chamber. This seems to be a run on from last week when Sinn Féin personnel on this Committee dumped on their own people in the Subgroup on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland, and dumped on them hard. They backed off them and left them hanging high and dry. Those people are not here, but we will deal with what we have. Sinn Féin now seems keen on a wrecking exercise designed to ruin any confidence building — for another week, at least. What guarantees do we have that anything will change in another week? What guarantees are there that anything will change if Sinn Féin gets the timescales and schedules that it is worried about? This is all a filibuster. We will not get consensus on a plenary sitting; it is now 11.35 am, for goodness’ sake. The Committee should bear in mind its earlier decision to approve the subgroup’s request that it be allowed to reconvene to prepare a report on an economic package and a further report on the forthcoming research from the Economic Research Institute of Northern Ireland (ERINI), which is due to be completed in October; and to employ at least one economist. Chairman, the members on the economic challenges subgroup put in an honest day’s work and worked very well as a team. I cannot speak for all those who sat on the subgroup, but most of its members — even, I think, Sinn Féin representatives — would see the decision to block the report as a right kick in the teeth. That is Sinn Féin’s intention. How can we encourage the subgroup to hang in there and prepare further reports if we cannot be sure that those reports will not be subjected to the same sort of nonsense? What is the point in preparing reports if they are only going to gather dust? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr McGimpsey will speak next, and that will be the last opportunity for the Ulster Unionist Party Assembly Group (UUPAG) to contribute to this debate. Mr McGimpsey: As everybody knows, this Committee started off in angry form, but then settled down throughout the summer. The work that it and the subgroup have carried out throughout the summer has not been without value; it has been a useful exercise. We all knew what the plan and timetable were. Martin says that he needs a serious plan, but a serious plan was published, and we knew roughly what the time frame was. As I understood it, we were heading towards plenary sittings in September to discuss these plans. The next key date will be the IMC report on 4 October to confirm whether, as William mentioned, the IRA is still an intact terrorist organisation or whether it has turned its back on terrorism and criminality. That will be another key trigger date, after which Blair will get involved, as he has done in the past. The countdown then begins to 24 November. I am quite clear about what is to happen on that date. We have been told that either the Executive and devolution restarts or MLAs’ salaries and allowances and financial assistance to parties will stop. The British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference is due to meet in December. That schedule was published, and we all received a copy. I do not understand why that has escaped Martin’s memory. He says that he wants a serious plan; we all have the serious plan, and we know what we are about. The deadline is 24 November. Members may or may not believe that that is a serious deadline. Deadlines have come and gone before, but it seems that this Secretary of State probably means what he says when he talks about that deadline — as do Blair and Ahern. However, there is an element of a gamble in that. However, that is the date towards which we have been working. I do not understand how Sinn Féin could sit in this Committee and in the subgroup and put their hands up and agree these reports — in fact, Sinn Féin members put their hands up to approve the report this morning — and then do a complete U-turn. The party now says that it is not prepared to go into the Assembly and tell everybody about the report — in effect, share our work with the public and let them know the issues on which consensus was reached. I wonder how serious Sinn Féin is, now that Martin has come back from holiday. Martin, I do not know whether you had a bad holiday or whether the salmon were not running — Mr M McGuinness: I had a very good holiday, Michael. Mr McGimpsey: You are certainly in fine form now. Questions must now be asked about how serious Sinn Féin is. Martin, you talk about history and the past, but we all could do that. We have had several goes at this — the last time was three years ago. You are quite right that you do not need all this to get the deal that you got with the comprehensive agreement, which was drawn up as a result of discussions that the two Governments had with the DUP and Sinn Féin. However, while that was being negotiated and discussed, the IRA was planning the Northern Bank raid. Therefore, this discussion is not taking place in a bubble; there is a history. You tax Alan for trying to interpret your remarks, but we are all likely to draw conclusions from them. It is odd, to say the least, that Sinn Féin has effectively done a U-turn this morning and is kicking this matter into next week or the following week, or whenever. You say that you have no schedule, when, in fact, you received it when this Committee started weeks ago. Now you claim that you need to have this schedule before you can get going. That casts serious doubts over how serious Sinn Féin is about reaching agreement on 24 November. You keep talking about getting on with the people’s agreement. The agreement is not your exclusive property, and it is definitely not the exclusive property of the two Governments. The agreement was drawn up between the UUP, the SDLP and the two Governments — Mr M McGuinness: So it is your exclusive property? Mr McGimpsey: No, it is not our exclusive property. Everybody has to be involved, and there were certain provisions in that agreement — Mr M McGuinness: Catch yourself on, Michael. Mr McGimpsey: A key issue was the interdependency of the institutions — the deal was that if there were no Assembly, there would be no North/South bodies. The North/South Ministerial Council and the Northern Ireland Assembly are mutually interdependent and one cannot successfully function without the other. I remind you, just as I reminded Conor Murphy and others, of what Paul Murphy said in the House of Commons on 8 March 1999: “The North-South Ministerial Council, to which the bodies are accountable, would disappear if there were no Assembly. Similarly, the bodies envisaged in the agreement would disappear.” There will be no Utopia post-24 November if you do not make the Assembly work. I have voiced this concern before, but I believe that you want to bust the Assembly to get what you think you can get out of it after 24 November. I have had occasional doubts in the past when listening to Sinn Féin members on other Committees, but I now have serious concerns about whether Sinn Féin is serious about this matter, and whether its plan A really is its plan A. Is this a step towards that? Mr P Robinson: I do not want to rain on your party, but let us be clear that the electorate have made their views known on the Belfast Agreement. The principle of the mandate is such that we must be guided by the most recent mandates, and the overwhelming majority of the unionist community has shown that it is not satisfied with the Belfast Agreement. Their views must be taken into account, given that the agreement requires cross-community support. It cannot work without the support of both communities, so it is essential that changes are made. Chairman, your earlier suggestion that we move on is probably sensible because Sinn Féin is at sixes and sevens; it does not quite know what it is doing. Members of that party attended the meeting last week. They gave their reasons why they had not approved the report. They said that the report was incomplete and that further work was required. They put forward all sorts of excuses, none of which were strong or satisfactory. However, we listened to them. 11.45 am This week, a new set of excuses has been put forward that run contrary to the actions taken by Mr McGuinness earlier today. At the start of the meeting, he approved the report, which states specifically, in the third paragraph of the executive summary, that the Assembly should debate it in September. Despite the fact that Sinn Féin has expressly approved the report being debated in September, it will not commit to that unless everybody jumps through its hoops. The schedule — which I understood was already in place — is meaningless, because it does not bind any party and does not deal with the key ingredient for restoration, which is that the republican movement has ended its paramilitary and criminal activity for good. We could go round in circles. I suspect that if we have another discussion on the matter next Monday, Sinn Féin will, yet again, throw the rattle out of the pram and will have another excuse for not entering the Assembly. It appears that its priority is not to be in the Assembly and not to discuss those matters, regardless of how important they are to the preparation for Government, whether they are agreed in Committee, whether everybody else wants to debate them or whether the Secretary of State directs it. We cannot change Sinn Féin’s attitude. It must sort out the internal differences between its members on the subgroup who, in their report, indicated that it must be debated in September, and Mr McGuinness and his colleagues who voted that it should be debated in September and who now say that they do not want it to be debated then. Dr McCrea: Sinn Féin, and Martin McGuinness in particular, is squirming this morning. He has tried to get cover from whatever source possible. Last week, we were told that the report is incomplete and that it is not necessarily a serious report. Peculiarly, however, the report, which was incomplete last week and to which only small, technical editorial changes have been made, is considered complete today and has, indeed, been passed. Sinn Féin is clearly playing a game. The Committee was set up to scope issues. Sinn Féin wanted negotiations, which are not in the Committee’s remit. It has kept to its remit. Sinn Féin, however, has tried to move the goal posts. It wants the Committee to delay the debate on the report, which it says is complete, for another week. Why? The reason is simple: Sinn Féin wants us to play its game. Earlier, Martin McGuinness told the Committee that Sinn Féin is not playing a game. Indeed, it is, and it wants the Committee to play along with it. The Committee would be foolish to do so. Questions are being asked about how serious Sinn Féin is. Anyone who reads the minutes of what happened this morning will see that no consistent argument, which could stand up to scrutiny, has been presented by Sinn Féin as to why the debate should be delayed. The report has been passed unanimously. It should, therefore, be presented to the Assembly as it is. Peter Robinson mentioned the important statement in the executive summary of the report that indicates that it should be debated in September. That has been accepted. A week has already been lost. Are we to delay the debate for another week? There are serious issues that must be dealt with by the Assembly. I appeal to the Committee to make the right decision on how to proceed. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I will allow Mr McGuinness to respond to the points that have been raised. Afterwards, we must proceed to the various proposals. Mr M McGuinness: As usual, those who are on the other side of the table have totally and absolutely misrepresented Sinn Féin’s intentions vis-à-vis the work of the Committee — Mr McNarry: That is how you have presented them, Martin. Mr M McGuinness: It is not a matter of how we have presented them. Time and time again, ad infinitum, you, Michael, Alan, Peter, and Willie McCrea have all given your views on Sinn Féin’s intentions. Mr McNarry: They are pretty consistent. Mr M McGuinness: That is all it is — your view. The SDLP, the Alliance Party and the Ulster Unionists are content to play the DUP’s game, but rest assured that Sinn Féin will not play that game. We stated from the beginning that we will hold both Governments to their stated objective and that the principal purpose of bringing back the Assembly was to see a Government established — a power-sharing Government — and the Good Friday institutions restored. That is what Sinn Féin seeks to achieve. Nothing that I have said, or that any Sinn Féin member has said in Committee or on the subgroup, conflicts with statements that I made earlier in the year that Sinn Féin is prepared to engage seriously in plenary debates and in discussions if it is satisfied that they form part of an overall project designed to fulfil the both Governments’ initial stated objective of restoring the institutions. Time and time again in deliberations today, both Peter Robinson and Willie McCrea have made it absolutely clear that the DUP is not bound by any deadline, and that the DUP is working to its own calendar. Will the DUP share that calendar with the rest of us? The Committee is discussing calendars and plans on how it will deal with everything, and it has just been handed the work plan for July, August, September, October and November. It states that during the autumn —I presume that that means September — efforts to elect the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will continue. I have not heard anybody talking about when that will be on the agenda for a plenary. Ken Reid told the general public that there will be intensive debates and discussions at a venue in Scotland — or Timbuktu, for all we know — some time in October. I have not heard anyone discuss that. The Committee should not blow out of all proportion what Sinn Féin seeks, which is that the Committee agree that it should deal with the motion on the economic challenges subgroup’s report in a plenary next Monday. That is all Sinn Féin is asking. The Committee should not make a melodrama out of it, and blow it out of proportion. It is not unreasonable, and if other people think that it is, that is tough on Sinn Féin. Mr McNarry: What will change between this Monday and next Monday? Mr M McGuinness: I do not know what will change. However, Sinn Féin will speak to both Governments about how they intend to take this process forward between now and 24 November. Sinn Féin has issues, but it will not place those issues before the Committee. Mr McNarry: The Governments are running this Committee, not Sinn Féin. Mr M McGuinness: Seán Farren is anxious that I inform the unionist parties about the conversations that we may have with both Governments, but, with respect, that is not how Sinn Féin negotiates. Mr Paisley Jnr: Call the psychiatrist. Dr Farren: On two occasions, the SDLP was referred to — The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am permitting Dr Farren to make a point of information on Mr McGuinness’s speech. Dr Farren: The accusation was made that the SDLP and others are working to the DUP’s agenda: that is not the case. I am working to the agenda before us, and I hope that Martin and his colleagues are as well. I made the point that issues that affected the schedule, and any changes or additions to it, would affect us all. It would be helpful if Martin McGuinness were to share those proposed changes with the Committee in order that it might appreciate their significance and understand why their absence is posing difficulties for Sinn Féin. I am certainly not anxious to hear of matters that Sinn Féin regards as privy to itself and the two Governments. However, the Committee is entitled to know what is missing from the schedule that causes Sinn Féin such difficulties that it cannot agree that the motion be approved. If Sinn Féin answers that question, my concerns will be slightly allayed. However, Martin has made no attempt to give an answer, hence my exasperation on the previous two occasions that I have spoken. Mr M McGuinness: I have already answered that question, and I have made clear — Dr Farren: I think not. Mr M McGuinness: I have made clear Sinn Féin’s reservations, and I have given a number of examples. For instance, the work plan of the two Governments was circulated this morning, but does anyone here know on what date in September the vote for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister will take place? Dr Farren: Table a motion with the Business Office in that case. Mr M McGuinness: It is not a matter of Sinn Féin tabling a motion. This is something that the British Secretary of State has empowered himself to do. It is not something over which the PFG Committee has any control. Unfortunately, that is the reality that we are dealing with, but Seán does not appear to be aware of that. It is also pertinent that the public learnt from Ken Reid on Ulster Television that intensive negotiations are to take place somewhere in Scotland in October. Dr Farren: There will only be intensive negotiations if people turn up for them. Mr M McGuinness: Nobody has yet refused to turn up for negotiations. Mrs Long: May I ask a question? The Chairman (Mr Wells): A point of information, Mrs Long. Mrs Long: Is this delay — Mr M McGuinness: They are only examples, Seán. Dr Farren: Give me a few more. Mr M McGuinness: No, I will not give you a few more. Mrs Long: Is this delay simply a fit of pique because the media has launched something that was not raised with the Committee? If that is the case, this is a poor show of trying to deal with the situation. I agree that finding these things out through the media is not the ideal way of dealing with the future of these talks. Mr M McGuinness: It is incredible that you should say that, Naomi — Mrs Long: It is not the most incredible thing that has been said this morning. Mr M McGuinness: It is incredible that you should say that you were made aware by UTV and Ken Reid that there will be negotiations early in October. Mrs Long: I did not say that. Mr M McGuinness: What did you say? Mrs Long: I said that Ken Reid announced that we would be going to Scotland. Mr M McGuinness: What are you going there for? A football match? Mrs Long: I asked if your reaction this morning was a fit of pique in the light of that announcement. Mr M McGuinness: It is not a fit of pique. Mrs Long: That is good; I wanted to clarify that. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have aired this adequately. I suspect that we might have difficulty in reaching consensus on this matter. One of the proposals is that the matter be deferred to Monday 11 September. That means deferring the debate to 18 September. It would be impossible to debate that and the other issues that are arising from the reports from the three strands of the PFG Committee in time — Mr M McGuinness: I do not know how you can presume that at this stage. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am simply reporting the mechanics. Mr McFarland is correct; most of those reports will require a minimum of two days’ debate. There would not be time to agree those reports, get them to the Business Committee and then to the Assembly in time for a possible start of negotiations on 9 October. Mr M McGuinness: We should not work forward on that basis. Mrs Long: Does the PFG Committee have the power to delay plenary sittings? On the previous occasion that we wanted an extension, the Committee had to request it in writing from the Secretary of State. The Chairman (Mr Wells): If the Committee did not put anything forward, Mrs Long, there would not be anything to debate. Mrs Long: That is not what I am asking; I want to know if the Committee has the power to delay the plenary sitting. Mr McFarland: It is not at all clear. The first debate was supposed to be on 4 September; that was the plan, and we all agreed that. Mr M McGuinness: Sinn Féin did not agree to that. Mr McFarland: The discussions that I had around — Mr M McGuinness: There you go again, misrepresenting Sinn Féin’s position. Mr McFarland: I understood that Sinn Féin was comfortable with this and with the delay that the subgroup was granted. Mr M McGuinness: Your understanding was clearly wrong. Mr McFarland: Perhaps you were not here for it, but your colleagues — Mr M McGuinness: I am aware of everything that happens here, Alan. Mr McFarland: The PFG Committee agreed to a week’s extension for the subgroup and asked the Secretary of State to delay the plenary for a week to — The Chairman (Mr Wells): There was agreement by consensus. Mrs Long: If there had not been consensus, it would not have happened. Mr McFarland: There was consensus, and Sinn Féin agreed, at this table, to delay the plenary from 4 September to 11 September. That was logical because there was more work to do in the subgroup. However, Martin McGuinness’s arguments this morning do not make sense and are not logical. Mr M McGuinness: Let us not go on the merry-go-round again. I have stated Sinn Féin’s position. Mr McFarland: I understand that. Mr M McGuinness: I have put a proposal to the Committee; I am the only person to have done so. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I assure you that we have several proposals to deal with. 12.00 noon We have aired the matter extremely well. I will put the proposal, which was on the original motion. I accept that some members may wish to amend that proposal, if it is accepted that we have a proposal at all. Mr Ford: Surely the logic of Naomi’s amendment to Martin McGuinness’s apparent proposal is that he should request that the Secretary of State order the delay and that it would be only proper that the Committee make that request in the right way. I am sure that he would wish the Secretary of State to request the wordings. Mr McNarry: Martin McGuinness would have to give good reasons for suggesting his proposal. What guarantees has he given that next Monday he will not have a different opinion and protest that we must delay even further? It is a filibuster. He does not have a clue what his reason is, because he does not have a reason. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is not a point of order, Mr McNarry. Mr McNarry: I am sorry. Mr P Robinson: It is a good point, however. Mr M McGuinness: Mr McNarry should contain himself. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Committee Clerks have pointed out that it would be logical to take first the proposal that stands in Mr McGuinness’s name, because if we agree to defer the issue for a week, we do not have to worry about the contents of the actual motion. I will put this — Mr P Robinson: Can we be clear? Is Mr McGuinness’s proposal to the effect that the debate should take place a week later; or that the PFG should consider the motion in a week’s time? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr McGuinness proposed that the discussion on the motion that will go to the Business Committee be deferred until Monday 11 September. Mr P Robinson: Again, there is no commitment to discuss the motion at all in the Assembly. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is there consensus on Mr McGuinness’s proposal? Members indicated dissent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We shall now return to the original motion. It would be helpful to get consensus on the principle behind the motion. Naomi had slight difficulties with it, and it has been tweaked somewhat, which I accept is legitimate. Seán had a few comments — Mr P Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Chairman. Was it proper for you to accept Mr McGuinness’s proposal, given that there is a direction from the Secretary of State that the issue must be discussed at the September plenary? Mr M McGuinness: How does accepting my proposal conflict with that direction? There is no conflict at all. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Secretary of State could intervene at any stage and instruct us on this issue. We could have still technically debated the motion in September even with that proposal, so I am happy that it was in order. However, the proposal has fallen; it has been defeated. Mr P Robinson: The problem is that, because we must operate on the basis of having consensus, nothing will be agreed. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We do not yet know what will happen, because we have to put a series of proposals. Mr P Robinson: We do know. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is unlikely perhaps, but I think — Mr McFarland: Chairman, it is fair to say that, from the beginning of these Committee meetings, the DUP’s key point was that the need for consensus on every issue would present problems. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We shall put the proposals. If the motion falls, there will be no arguments over the semantics, because there will be no motion. Mr McFarland: Chairman, did this motion come from the subgroup or from the PFG Committee? The Chairman (Mr Wells): No. The clerking team suggested it in order that the Committee would have something with which to work. Mr McFarland: Is it not up to the Secretary of State to produce the motion? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. He can intervene and instruct the Business Committee on how to proceed, and he can instruct the Assembly to debate the issue. Mr McNarry: If it is likely that there is no consensus, are we bound to write to the Secretary of State to say that we have been unable to reach consensus, so we are unable to avail ourselves of the date that he has offered us? The Chairman (Mr Wells): No, that is a matter for the Business Committee. Mr P Robinson: If that is the case, all we are discussing is the content of the motion, not the date when it will be debated: it is up to the Business Committee to determine that. Therefore, let us consider the motion, regardless of when it will be debated. The Chairman (Mr Wells): If the motion falls, I will suggest, as Chairman, a possible procedural motion that could be used. Mr McNarry: Why should the motion fall if it is just its content, and not the date for debating it, on which we must agree? The Chairman (Mr Wells): I cannot pre-empt what members will say, so I shall put the motion simply to remind members that — Mr P Robinson: The draft motion in front of us has a heading, which specifies a date. The heading has to be removed. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The heading is there for guidance. It is not part of the draft motion and can be deleted. There is no difficulty with that. It has been two hours since we first read the draft motion into the record, so I would remind members of the wording: “That the Assembly approves the first report from the Committee on the Preparation for Government on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland; agrees that it should be submitted to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland; and calls on the Secretary of State to take action to implement the recommendations in the Report.” I know that there are technical difficulties with that. If they are sustained, we will come back to them as amendments. Does the Committee accept in principle that it will have a motion of that nature at some stage, with amendments? Are we agreed? Members indicated assent. Mr M McGuinness: We are not agreed on that taking place on the — The Chairman (Mr Wells): The draft motion is simply as I read it. There will be no date attached. We have reached consensus on that. There were technical difficulties with the numbering of the recommendations because we had made some of them ourselves, such as the appointment of an economic advisor. Mr Ford, you suggested that we should specifically refer to recommendations 1-16 and 19-21, because recommendations 17 and 18 are within our own bailiwick. The last line of the draft motion would then read, “and calls on the Secretary of State to implement recommendations 1-16 and 19-21.” Is that agreed? Mr Ford: There is the further point, which Naomi raised. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I will be coming to the issue of “pending restoration”. Mr Ford: I presume the Clerks have got the numbers right. Those are the short-term issues for the Secretary of State. However, the draft motion still implies that responsibility for all of those recommendations rests and is likely to remain with the Secretary of State. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I would then move to Mrs Long’s amendment that we add the words, “pending the restoration of the institutions”. We are trying to bring together a composite motion to reflect those comments. Mr P Robinson: Why not just add the words, “calls on the Secretary of State and others to take action to implement the recommendations in the report”? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mrs Long is unhappy with that. Mrs Long: I prefer the words, “pending the restoration of the institutions”. If we are to debate the recommendations in the context of preparation for Government, then that has to be the context in which the motion goes forward. Mr P Robinson: That is not accurate either, because there are recommendations that are not for the Secretary of State, but which are for others, whether or not there is restoration. Mrs Long: I do not object to the word “others” being included, but I prefer to include the reference to restoration. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We shall include both. That should combine the three concerns expressed about the motion as drafted. The motion now reads: “That the Assembly approves the first report from the Committee on the Preparation for Government on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland; agrees that it should be submitted to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland; and, pending the restoration of the institutions, calls upon the Secretary of State and others to take action to implement recommendations 1-16 and 19-21 in the report.” Does that satisfy the three considerations? Mr P Robinson: Why are we specifying those recommendations? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Because recommendations 17 and 18 are our responsibility. Mr P Robinson: This is an Assembly motion, and these are PFG responsibilities. We are saying that the Assembly is telling the Secretary of State and others — The Chairman (Mr Wells): The word “others” referring to us? Mr P Robinson: We are some of the “others”. Mr McFarland: It should not matter. The Committee’s action fits in under “others”. Mr McNarry: We have already accepted that in the motion. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We can drop the wording as a result of the additional material. Are members happy with that? Dr Farren: Read the motion to us now, please. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Here we go again: “That the Assembly approves the first report from the Committee on the Preparation for Government on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland; agrees that it should be submitted to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland; and, pending the restoration of the institutions, calls upon the Secretary of State and others to take action to implement the recommendations in the report.” Mr P Robinson: It might be appropriate to give more standing to the PFG Committee and make the recomm-endation read, “The Secretary of State, the Committee on the Preparation for Government and others”. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I can see the logic to that. Are members content with that suggestion? Mr Ford: That seems logical, given that two of the recommendations have been made specifically by the PFG Committee. Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There is no date attached to the proposal: it stands as worded. Mr M McGuinness: The proposal would be enhanced if we included the phrase “before 24 November”. Mr Ford: Looking at the long-term nature of some of the recommendations on the economy, it is unrealistic to suggest that we could implement them by 24 November. Although that date might have resonance in certain other areas, I am not sure that we can put the Northern Ireland economy right in three months. The Chairman (Mr Wells): After the composite proposal, the motion reads as follows: “That the Assembly approves the first report from the Committee on the Preparation for Government on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland; agrees that it should be submitted to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland; and, pending the restoration of the institutions, calls upon the Secretary of State, the Preparation for Government Committee and others to take action to implement the recommendations in the report.” Are members content with the composite proposal? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have got through a lot of business this morning, and it is not appropriate to move to the ministerial code and the various strands of the report at this point. I suggest that we break now. The Committee was suspended at 12.11 pm. On resuming — 12.49 pm The Chairman (Mr Wells): Comments have been received from some members about delays in receiving the Official Report (Hansard). This matter was drawn to the attention of Madam Speaker, and her response, I hope, explains the difficulties that the Office of the Official Report faces. Do members have any comments on Madam Speaker’s response? Mr McFarland: I raised this matter originally. I was concerned that it seemed to be taking an awfully long time. What worried me is that for four years we were unable to do our work; when the opportunity arose in May to start doing some fairly substantial work again, someone should have checked whether the system at Stormont could cope. Presumably the Secretary of State decided we were going to do this work. I know that it has been a pain for the Clerks and others who have had to reorganise their lives over the summer. However, as we are doing some work for the first time in four years, I could not quite understand why the Office of the Official Report was not able — albeit it was a nuisance, and a pain, or whatever — to provide its usual high standard. Hansard was excellent during the first Assembly: staff carried out their work and the report was accurate. Having got all of this up and running again you would have expected the Clerking system and Hansard to be of the same standard as before and to work though whatever difficulties they have had. We have all had difficulties over the summer in terms of reorganising our lives to cope with this. I do not want to dispute what Madam Speaker has been told, but on the day I raised this matter I had got a Hansard report out for comment, which I think had been for a meeting which was over a week, or 10 days, beforehand. I was just confused as to why that should be the case. Anyway, I will let it lie there. Madam Speaker has replied to us. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are you happy with Madam Speaker’s response to your concerns? Mr McFarland: I acknowledge Madam Speaker’s letter. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are members content to leave it that Mrs Bell has explained the situation and the problems there have been? You cannot just go into the street and pick up a member of Hansard staff — they are highly trained, professional people who spend many years learning the trade. It is not just about getting extra bodies — you have to train people to do the job. Mr McFarland: Could I ask a question? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. Mr McFarland: If we ever get to the halcyon days when the DUP and Sinn Féin do a deal — perhaps before 24 November — Mr P Robinson: Why do you keep writing yourselves off? Mr McFarland: Supposing they manage to do a deal on 10 October and this place fires up, where are we going to get those fully trained Hansard operatives at that stage? I am confused as to why it seems to be OK that we have let all those staff go and are not concerned whether they are back or not. Does the Secretary of State not have confidence that the parties can do the deal? The Chairperson (Mr Wells): I can say from my experience on the Assembly Commission and on the Speaker’s Advisory Group that we will have enormous difficulties if the Assembly fires up suddenly. At the last count we had lost 114 permanent staff, who have gone elsewhere. Mr P Robinson: We have taken note of that: no rush back. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I know from previous experience in September 1998 that the staff rose to the occasion magnificently, and it was seamless. So it can be done. However, we need to appreciate the very unusual circumstances in which we find ourselves as an Assembly. Does any other member wish to comment on this issue? Ms Gildernew: I am sorry that I missed the substantive part of the discussion. I would like to reiterate that Hansard has had to cope admirably with a great deal of work that nobody was able to foresee a number of months ago. I apologise if those remarks have already been made. The staff have done a sterling job in providing the relevant documentation for us at each stage. We should congratulate them on the work that they have done to date. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am certain that the Editor of Debates will ensure that those comments are accurately minuted and recorded. The next item is the draft minutes of the meeting of 29 August. Have members had an opportunity to read them? Are there any corrections or additions? The minutes tend to be non-contentious. They are always a clear and accurate record of the meetings. Mr P Robinson: There is very little in them. The Chairman (Mr Wells): They are stark, because Hansard records everything anyway. Are members agreed on the draft minutes of 29 August? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The next item is the draft ministerial code. Mr McFarland has drawn it to our attention that OFMDFM officials have been considering changes and additions to the ministerial code, and they will make the new material available to us by Friday. Do members wish to proceed on the issue today, or do they feel that it is more appropriate to wait until we have the material on Friday, which means that it would be debated next Wednesday? Mr McFarland: Even though a ministerial code was produced and agreed at the beginning of the previous Assembly, work was ongoing to document the evolving custom and practice in the Executive. Had the Assembly not been suspended, the modified version would have gone before the Executive and been agreed. According to the Secretary of State’s plan, the Committee is obliged to agree, or suggest, a ministerial code in October. Therefore it seems daft to work on a draft ministerial code when work had been ongoing, and modifications were available. Those suggested modifications have no official status, but, if we are to produce a code in October, it makes sense to consider that which had evolved and was being documented as a result of experience and best practice during the first Assembly. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We could have a general debate on the ministerial code. The DUP has submitted a paper on it. Have members had a chance to read it? Mr M McGuinness: Is this the first time that this paper has been submitted? Mr P Robinson: All parties were invited to submit papers for this meeting. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Only the DUP took up that option. Mr M McGuinness: Sinn Féin does not propose any changes to the ministerial code, but we are happy to consider proposed changes by any party, provided that they are based on rationale and that they are within the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. Mr McNarry: Are you sure that you do not want to talk to Peter Hain about them first? Mr M McGuinness: Normally, we talk among ourselves before we talk to the British overlords in whom you place a great deal of confidence. Mr McNarry: You accused me of making assumptions, but now you are making them. Mr M McGuinness: This is the first time that we have seen the DUP paper. I am unsure if other parties have submitted papers. The Chairman (Mr Wells): No, the DUP is the only party to have submitted a paper. Mr McFarland: If we are to receive the latest version of the ministerial code from OFMDFM on Friday, it makes sense to sit down and work through the DUP’s document. Then we could move forward and have a sensible debate on the issue. 1.00 pm Mr P Robinson: Mr Chairman, the context to this discussion is that all the parties here have agreed that there should be a ministerial code, elements of which should be given statutory authority in a new piece of legislation. The Committee also agreed that there were some issues best dealt with in a ministerial code, such as accountability. Indeed, there was general agreement that the issue of support for the rule of law could be dealt with in that context as well. There has been consensus on those issues thus far. The DUP submission relates only to the matters which we feel it would be necessary — beyond what is already in the legislation — to include as part of a statutory ministerial code, or the elements of the ministerial code that would have a statutory effect. Clearly, there are other matters. There are two exercises; first, what has to go into statute, and second, what the content of a wider, all-embracing ministerial code might be. Have we any indication from OFMDFM what areas they have considered for change in the ministerial code? Are they areas that are likely to impact on the statutory elements? This Committee had a particular obligation to look at obstacles to devolution. I suspect that most of the ministerial code will not be considered by anybody to be an obstacle to devolution. However, some of the obstacles to a return to devolution that have been identified could be dealt with in a statutory ministerial code. We need to distinguish between those two elements. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is a helpful comment. The NIO will be giving us a paper on the additional work that it has been doing on the code. Mr P Robinson: The NIO? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Sorry, OFMDFM. It is not going to be a revised draft code. The issues that we think are going to be new are issues such as bringing written papers to the Executive and the implications of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for the workings of the Executive. Those are obviously matters that they would not have been aware of in 2000. Mr McFarland: Do you know why it is taking so long? Mr P Robinson: Perhaps they have not seen the schedule. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Taking so long to bring it to us? Mr McFarland: Yes. There is likely to be a document that they have annotations on. My understanding was that they actually had something. Presumably it is a matter of photocopying that and giving it to us. Why is it taking until Friday? The Chairman (Mr Wells): As you know, Alan, this matter was only raised on Friday. Mr McFarland: Yes, but 15 photocopies does not take a week. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There is no document as such. The various changes have to be brought together under one cover for our benefit. That is what I have been told. It is not available today, but it will be. Mr McFarland: Can we hurry them up? Mr P Robinson: Freedom of information is not going to be relevant to the core issues, which could be resolving obstacles. If we get that done, so be it. There is no rush to get that done in the next month or two, is there? The written papers and the rules that would relate to them being brought to the Executive or elsewhere might have a bearing on it. Mr McFarland: The programme requires that: “Parties conclude discussions and finalise draft Programme for Government and draft Ministerial Code”. That is for October, so logically in September we would be examining all this and coming to some conclusion on it. Is the actual Programme for Government to be debated, or just key parts of it? Are the statutory parts to be debated? Mr P Robinson: What is put forward is up to us. The PFG Committee was given the role of putting forward recommendations for debate so, if it is thought to be an important element, then maybe it will be put forward. Realistically, given the timescale that has been mapped out to November, we will do well to deal with the reports of the Subgroup on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland, and of the PFG Committee dealing with institutions, policing and human rights. That will account for four weeks, and if we are all going to go to Timbuktu or Scotland in between, it might take another week or two. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am in the hands of the members. Dr Farren: I understand that, at the minute, you are seeking a way forward as to how we handle this debate. We have had a paper from the DUP and we have the original draft ministerial code. In addition, there are notes from OFMDFM. It would be helpful if we had all of that together at one time, so that we could go through it, setting the various recommendations for change, if there are any, against the original document. I am not in favour of delaying things, but it would help if we met with all the relevant documents before us. Another suggestion, and I hope it is helpful though I am not a legal expert, is that the original document could be marked to tell us which elements are likely to be part of statute, so that we could see what in the ministerial code would be statutory and what would not. Mr P Robinson: That is for us to decide. All we have at the moment is a pledge of office and a code of conduct. I was never clear as to whether the code of conduct was not really a statutory element of a ministerial code. If it is, perhaps that bit needs to be expanded. It is up to us to determine how much of it should be statutory. The DUP has stated what it believes should be included. Dr Farren: There may be certain elements that obviously lend themselves to statutory underpinning, and therefore they might be marked because they could be made statutory. There might be other elements that we could add to it or take away. It is helpful to have guidelines, although we do not have to be dictated to by them, as to what should be part of statute and what should not. It is just to help debate. Mr P Robinson: If officials are going to do that, they might want to look at elements that, though they are in a ministerial code, are giving Ministers what is already in other legislation outside of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 or any successor Act. Much of it — for instance, the freedom of information stuff that we are talking about — is to meet legal requirements. That is the case in the existing ministerial code. All it does is tell the Minister what he should do because he is legally required to do it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): When do we do this? The DUP is the only party that took up the invitation to provide a paper. Others could still do that, if we return to this issue. Dr Farren: The SDLP will not. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have this note from OFMDFM. The Assembly is to sit on Monday, so we will not meet. Dr Farren suggests that we move this discussion to our next meeting, which is on Wednesday. That would give members a chance to consider the DUP’s paper and perhaps give other parties an opportunity, if they wish, to provide more material. Alternatively we can dive into this now, and hope that when the note comes through on Friday from OFMDFM, it does not radically alter what we have decided. Mr M McGuinness: That makes no sense. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Those are the two proposals. I am entirely in the hands of the Committee as to how we deal with it. Dr Farren: This is not a major exercise, even though the document is substantial. There is much that we will probably agree needs to be in a ministerial code, whether statutory or otherwise. There may be disagreement over what needs to be underpinned by statute. I would prefer to have all the documentation in front of me so that we can go right through it and finish the job in one day. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We would not have any difficulty in filling the rest of today, given the items that are on the agenda, so we will not lose time on this issue. There seems to be support for Dr Farren’s proposal. Do members agree that we should defer discussion on the ministerial code until our Wednesday meeting? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): A related issue is a proposal by Ian Paisley Jnr, which was referred by the meeting of Wednesday 30 August. It states: “The Committee believes that a breach of the Ministerial Pledge of Office should be actionable in the courts and followed by disqualification from office.” Do members wish to debate that proposal today or defer it until we discuss the other issues? Mr Paisley Jnr: It would be helpful if we kept it on the agenda but moved it to next Wednesday to give everyone a chance to consider the papers. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are there any contrary views? Mr M McGuinness: The proposals are about the same issue. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is there consensus on that proposal? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We now move to “Discussions on institutional issues”. It has been a long haul for everyone, and several issues have been parked. One member said that the car park now had several storeys. We need to make decisions on those issues. We have a problem about what to do. I suspect that we will not reach consensus on some issues, but we will have to include them in the report, stating that the issues were debated but that we have not reached agreement on them. However, we may reach consensus on other issues. Mr P Robinson: Are these outstanding issues, or have they been discussed and we could not reach agreement on them? The Chairman (Mr Wells): There is a mixture. Some of the issues were debated in great detail. Mr P Robinson: I will put the question another way. Are there any issues that we discussed and could not reach agreement on that have not been included? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes, but those are issues where we could not reach agreement. We decided that the report would state that we did not reach agreement on them. Mr P Robinson: Can we do the same with some of these issues? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. The parties flagged up some issues as being major impediments to devolution, and others were merely disagreements. However, we are left with these issues hanging in the air. Mr Paisley Jnr: Can the Clerks provide us with a list of issues that have not been agreed? Mrs Long: There are distinctions. Consensus was not reached on certain issues, and the discussions were completed; there are issues that we will consider today where consensus was not reached but discussions were to continue; and there are a few issues where consensus was reached. The Chairman (Mr Wells): These are the issues that are in the car park, as it were. Mr Paisley Jnr: Set the car park aside for a moment and deal with the issues that are in their appropriate place — unagreed, but in their appropriate place. Mr P Robinson: I assume that we will receive a report that will give us a list of everything that has been agreed or has not been agreed. We want to know which category we put those into. Mr Paisley Jnr: There must be a draft list somewhere. The Chairman (Mr Wells): They are in three separate reports. Mr Paisley Jnr: You could give us a copy. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is a long list. A great deal of work was required to extract that information. The Committee Clerk: The work on that list is under way. Mr Paisley Jnr: A list will have to be produced, anyway. The Committee Clerk: The complete list is not ready. We intended to produce the list for the next meeting. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The draft of that report will be issued by the end of this week. Mr Paisley Jnr: In this vacuum, an aide-memoire might be useful, so it would be good to have sight of where we stand on many of those issues. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is the difficulty, because some of the issues date back to the start of August. Mr McFarland: It is absolutely clear from our discussions that we shall not reach agreement on some of those issues, which I thought had been accepted would go to the negotiations in October. For example, the matters concerning the election of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister directly relate to the comprehensive agreement. We held several days’ worth of discussion on that matter and I understood that we could not reach agreement on how that was going to operate. 1.15 pm We are putting off discussions on the ministerial code and the Pledge of Office until next week. We will never reach agreement between nationalism and unionism, in their broadest senses, over the North/South implementation bodies, because unionism is happy enough with what has already been negotiated. Mrs Long: You are, essentially, prejudging the outcome of the discussion. You may judge that matters will not be agreed. I happen to agree with you, but we must formally not agree them today for them to fall into that category. We have to go through the formal process seeking consensus. Mr McFarland: Having spent at least two days on many of these issues, it would not make much sense for us again to open up broad discussions on them. If we are taking decisions, that is absolutely fine, but my sense is that we are not going to reach agreement. Of course, that must come officially from the Committee. The reason that most of those items were parked was because there was no agreement and, rather than say that the issue is closed, we have said that we will park it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Alan, the other option is that we slot each of those matters into the relevant report — the draft report that members will be considering — and there will be another opportunity at that stage to try to reach agreement. Mr McFarland: My point is that, for example, there may or may not be negotiation on the number of North/South implementation bodies in the autumn, just as there was with the comprehensive agreement. It will be the same, I suspect, with the OFMDFM matters. We may manage to do something about the matters relating directly to our discussions on the ministerial code, etc, on which there is quite a lot of room for sensible agreement. It is probably fairly easy to agree that the rest be parked in the report and will be the subject of negotiations in the autumn. The Chairman (Mr Wells): For example, Alan, there was a general agreement that a mechanism is needed to ensure stability. That issue was to be parked with a view to exploring possible mechanisms. There was not a great clash among the parties; it was agreed to come back and explore those mechanisms. Mr P Robinson: Four of the matters relate to the ministerial code. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We could move those into the debate next Wednesday. Mr P Robinson: Could we agree then that the other elements should be matters considered during negotiations, as there is no consensus at the present time? Mr McFarland: Certainly, the issues concerning the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister lend themselves to that. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We accept that no matter how long we debate those issues and the matters concerning North/South implementation bodies and the North/South Ministerial Council, we are not going to reach agreement on them, so we move them into those matters that will the subject of negotiations. The other matters will be discussed on Wednesday, along with Mr Paisley’s motion. Mr P Robinson: Which Wednesday are we talking about? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Wednesday 13 September. There is one other issue — reducing the numbers of MLAs and deferring consideration on the mechanism for further consideration. Dr Farren: Did we not defer that matter to a Committee of the Assembly because, essentially, that is where it would have to be? Mr McFarland: It is not going to happen before the next election. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes, there was no rush on that matter. Dr Farren: Turkeys do not queue up for Christmas. The Chairman (Mr Wells): As one of the turkeys — [Laughter.] Dr Farren: It was said, appropriately, that that matter should be with a Committee of the Assembly, rather than with us. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The major issue is that plenaries are to be held on 11 and 12 September. Members might like to look at the work plan; there is quite a bit to it. We will soon have to consider the draft reports on the three areas being dealt with by the Committee. The Committee dealing with institutional issues and the Committee dealing with law-and-order issues will each hold two more meetings. However, I believe that the Committee dealing with rights, equality and safeguards will issue a draft report on Wednesday, which will hopefully be agreed on 8 September. When all those meetings have taken place, we hope to agree the reports and refer them to the Business Committee so that the reports can be debated in the Assembly the following week. Difficulties will arise if we cannot reach agreement at the end of those meetings. However, in theory, that is the programme. We will work through the next month, making referrals to the Business Committee, followed by debates in the Chamber. Mr McFarland: Chairman, now that we are getting down to the sharp end of this matter, we should consider how long it will take us to complete the necessary work. When time gets tight, members may consider working on a Wednesday, but not on a Thursday. However, we need to work Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. My colleagues will obviously want to have Fridays in their constituencies, but, of course, the Committee meets on Fridays. At this stage, we should be able to work Monday through to Friday in order to get through the business at hand, should we not? There may be some delays, and it will be difficult, but we cannot simply decide to work some days and not others and hope that everything will be OK. It would be a mistake to leave this work until 3 October, even though it seems a long way down the line. If we are going to be away somewhere or other the following week, we should have all our work tidied up, debated and out of the way by then. We do not want to be dealing with this work after 3 or 4 October, if, as Peter said, these reports are to be the basis of discussions, or are to help with discussions. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have the power to meet whenever we feel it is appropriate. However, members must bear in mind that as the economic challenges subgroup will soon be back in action, members may have to attend its meetings, as well as those of the Business Committee, and, possibly, party meetings. Mr McFarland: The main concern for the subgroup was the preparation of a report for a plenary. That is a key issue, but it is a longer-term issue, as other colleagues have mentioned. The work on economic issues will take quite some time, so it does not have to be completed by 4 October — although, as was mentioned this morning, discussions on a potential economic package must be held before the talks. We must clear the debris out of the way so that when we reach the talks, it is absolutely crystal clear what the issues are, what the parties’ positions are, and what negotiations need to take place. It would be quite ambitious to leave that work until after the debates on 3 and 4 October — as we appear to be doing. We should try to complete some of that work before then, because, as our experience of the Assembly has shown, everything takes much longer than we think it will. Therefore, the more work we undertake now, the more time we will have later to deal with matters that go astray. It seems daft to devise a programme, but leave no time to sort out any difficulties that may arise or to arrange an Assembly debate. It would be useful to have a sensible debate in the Assembly about those issues before going into talks. Mr P Robinson: I am not throwing out a fly to bait Mr McGuinness on the economic issue, but a motion on the economic challenges facing Northern Ireland is to be debated in the Assembly on Monday 11 and Tuesday 12 September. We have three further reports to debate on three further Mondays and Tuesdays before we get to Timbuktu. Do we not need to make sure that we have a report for each of those Mondays and Tuesdays? Does the work programme provide for that? Can we meet the work programme for each of the reports? The Committee Clerk: The equality report will be discussed this Friday, and the Committee will get one go at it before we table it for debate. The law and order report will be discussed on Wednesday, but we will give the Committee two goes at it. The report on the institutions is supposed to be discussed next Wednesday and the following Wednesday, but we have programmed events to allow one report to go to plenary every week. Mr P Robinson: Therefore you think that the timetable can be met. The Chairman (Mr Wells): A problem arises if the Committee cannot reach agreement on the equality report by the end of the first day or by the end of the second day on the other two reports. Mr McFarland: It does not buy us any time. It is ambitious to leave the final plenary sittings to the day before the Independent Monitoring Commission report is published. If there were to be a delay, the reports will start to stack up. I do not mind whether we have a spare Thursday in each week on which we can roll over. However, we need to get into a mindset of dealing with the issues sooner rather than later. Mr P Robinson: I agree with you. If those who are discussing rights issues do not get agreement, they will simply have to come in the next day, will they not? The Chairman (Mr Wells): If the Committee accepts that solution, there are no procedural difficulties with having a meeting on a Thursday. Mr McFarland: We need to lodge in the common psyche the fact that it takes as long as it takes and that people will have to be prepared to come in when necessary to reach agreement. My worry is that if we are programmed to have our final decisions on 3 and 4 October, that does not leave us much time for other matters. Bringing everything back a week, or having plenaries on Monday and Tuesday of one week and on Wednesday and Thursday of another, could buy us time. I am worried that our business will stack up and get stuck and that we will head off into the ether without having had a proper debate. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We simply set aside Thursday as the reserve day. If we run into problems and are not making headway or if members have to rush off to Westminster, we can still get a team together. Mr P Robinson: Westminster does not come back until the third week in October. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Lucky for them. Are members content that we put in a reserve day and timetable it accordingly? That will give us a fall-back position should things start to unravel. That will keep us within the timetable of trying to get a report through each week to plenary. I see no opposition to that suggestion, which surprises me. Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We discussed a proposal by Monica McWilliams, the chief commissioner of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, to hold a meeting — a one-night residential — with the members of the Preparation for Government Committee. At the meeting that I chaired last Friday, four parties agreed to the meeting in principle. The DUP wanted time to consider the matter and said that it would report to us today on whether it could attend such a meeting. Mr P Robinson: It is not a priority for us. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Does that mean that you will be unable to attend? Mr P Robinson: It is unlikely. I understand that the proposal is that we spend two days in discussion. However, one of those days conflicts with an Assembly sitting. Mrs Long: The conflict with the potential plenary sitting was raised on Friday, and I asked that contact be made with the commissioner to explain that it would not be possible for any party to be part of that discussion if it conflicted with a plenary sitting. My understanding is that we made a commitment to try to adhere to those dates. The Committee Clerk: I contacted Prof McWilliams and she informed me that she had spoken to the Secretary of State’s office and that it had informed her that if the Committee thought that it was a priority to go to this event, the plenary sitting could be timetabled around it. I then spoke to the Secretary of State’s office, and it confirmed that that conversation had taken place. 1.30 pm Ms Lewsley: That is absolutely amazing. The Chairman (Mr Wells): What do members feel? Mr P Robinson: That has reinforced my view that it is not our priority. Mr McFarland: What does that mean, Mr Chairman? Are the programme that we have just been discussing and the plenary days going to change? The Chairman (Mr Wells): No. The Secretary of State is saying that we can change it ourselves if we want to. Mr P Robinson: If the Committee is going to go on a two-day jolly with Monica, we would have to change the plenary days. Mr McNarry: We would need time to go to the gym for a couple of days before that. Ms Lewsley: Given what Mrs Long said, may I have some clarification? My understanding was that we were to ask the Human Rights Commission if other dates were available. Mr McFarland: Yes. We were to ask the commissioner for other dates. It was not for the commissioner to ask the Secretary of State whether we could change our plenary meetings to suit her. Mrs Long: With all due respect to the commissioner, we have business to do here. We have been invited to take part in a meeting with the Commission. We were asking for an alternative date. The position of the PFG Committee was clear on Friday — an alternative date was the way forward. It was not for the commissioner to ask permission for us to change our mind. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The other dates for the meeting with the Human Rights Commission were late into October when we will all be away negotiating somewhere in the eastern Sahara. The difficulty is that things will have moved on a fair bit by then. It is entirely up to members. Mr Paisley Jnr: Leave it until after 24 November; it will give us something to do. Mr P Robinson: We are too committed to getting the preparations for Government right to go off on these junkets. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I will report back to Prof McWilliams and let her know the situation. Mr M McGuinness: What exactly are we letting her know? The Chairman (Mr Wells): I will be letting her know that the date does not seem to be appropriate and asking her for an alternative one. Dr Farren: Does it have to last two days? The Chairman (Mr Wells): She wants it to run overnight. I think it will last a day and a half. Dr Farren: So it is a bonding exercise. Mr M McGuinness: Are we being truthful with her? From what I am hearing from Peter Robinson, there appears to be a fundamental objection from the DUP to a meeting with the Human Rights Commission. Mr P Robinson: The DUP has no objection to discussing issues, even with Monica. Looking at the timetable for the next number of months, we have to make a determination about how much we take on. I have been turning down all sorts of things over the next number of months because of the work programme. I just do not think that this is a priority for us. Mr Ford: I want to explore Mr Robinson’s priorities a little. What is suggested is having a meeting during a plenary sitting day for the Assembly and on the second day, which is a serious work day — that clearly creates problems. It might be possible to get a day earlier, or even a period which could involve an overnight stay. The issue of human rights is fundamental to restoring the Government, and we should not say that it is not a priority. My problem is with where it conflicts with the schedule. Mr P Robinson: What are we going to gain from this meeting? How will it help us to fulfil our obligations? Mr Ford: We spent a fair bit of time on Fridays discussing human rights. Mr P Robinson: So why do we need to go there? I am told that they are one meeting off reaching agreement on a report. What are we going off to see Monica about? Mr Ford: Maybe it would be useful if we helped to influence them before that meeting takes place. Ms Lewsley: I am getting confused. I assumed that we had consensus on the need for a bill of rights, and we had a debate on what should be contained in it. That is what we are talking about here. Because we agree that there should be one, maybe now we can talk about some of the detail. This was a matter of trying to get the parties to agree a structure for the bill. Maybe a day and a half, or two days, for a meeting is too long. Perhaps we should be asking the Human Rights Commission for a shorter meeting that does not conflict with plenary sittings. Mr Ford: That is what we proposed last week. Mr P Robinson: That is not relevant to the matter at hand. The job that the PFG Committee has been given is to prepare for Government. In other words, we are to look at all of the issues that need to be resolved in order for devolution to be triggered. The issue of a bill of rights for Northern Ireland does not need to be resolved before that happens. Therefore, a bill of rights can wait. What is important is that we focus on those issues that we must resolve. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I understand that Ms McWilliams is happy to accept a delegation of the parties’ spokespersons on human rights, even if they are not members of the PFG Committee. Therefore, parties do not have to commit members of this Committee — who are very busy — to that delegation. I appreciate that that is causing problems for many members. The Committee staff will contact Ms McWilliams to see what she proposes as an alternative. Is everyone reasonably happy with that? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The next meeting of the PFG Committee will be held on 6 September, at which residual law-and-order issues will be discussed. The Committee will also consider the first draft of its report on law- and-order issues. That will be its first bite of the cherry on that matter. As normal, lunch will be provided. The next meeting of the PFG Committee dealing with institutional issues will be held on Wednesday 13 September at 2.00 pm, when the first draft of its report will be considered. Lunch will not be provided. Adjourned at 1.36 pm. |