COMMITTEE ON THE Wednesday 6 September 2006 Members in attendance for all or part of proceedings: Witness: The Committee met at 10.03 am. (The Chairman (Mr Molloy) in the Chair.) The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I remind members to switch off their mobile phones. Are there any new members of the Committee who wish to declare an interest? Members indicated dissent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): OK. We shall now move on to the draft minutes of the meeting of 30 August. Mr McFarland: Are we recording attendance first? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Yes; I am sorry. Lord Morrow: Will we receive a copy of the minutes, or are they for the chosen few only? Is there a code word, and can you tell me what it is? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Who is deputising today? Mr G Kelly: I am deputising for Martin McGuinness. Mr Raymond McCartney: I am deputising for Conor Murphy. Mr D Bradley: I am deputising for Alex Attwood, and I will be joined later by Seán Farren. Mr Ford: I am myself, and Sean Neeson is deputising for Naomi Long. Mr McFarland: Danny Kennedy sends his apologies and will not have a deputy today. Fred Cobain will be along shortly; he is standing in for Mr McNarry. Lord Morrow: I expect that Sammy Wilson and Diane Dodds will be here. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are members content with the minutes of the PFG Committee meeting held on 30 August 2006? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The next matter on the agenda is the Committee’s letter to the Secretary of State and his reply. The Secretary of State will attend the PFG Committee meeting on 18 September at 10.00 am. That is set as a plenary date, but the plenary is not likely to happen before 12.00 noon, and the Committee meeting will be finished by then. The Secretary of State’s reply addresses the issue of national security and the type of information that the policing oversight bodies can expect to receive. The Committee should have been informed last week of who could be expected to receive that information. The letter sets out with whom the information will be shared and states how the Government will engage with the political parties on the matter. Does anyone wish to comment on that? Mr D Bradley: As there is a range of issues up for discussion, it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to attend the Committee for two hours. I propose that the Committee requests that he does so. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): How long is the meeting likely to last? The Committee Clerk: The Committee meeting is set for 10.00 am, and the plenary starts at 12.00 noon. It will be tight. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The four main issues up for discussion at that meeting — at this stage — will be national security, the role of the Army, the Glenties speech, and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. If any other issues arise from today’s meeting, they will be considered. It is our intention to forward the Committee’s questions to the Secretary of State so that he comes prepared. The Committee asked whether Army powers would be restricted to public order and explosive ordnance disposal. The Secretary of State’s letter states that they will not, but does not say what its other powers might be. That question can be put to the Secretary of State at the meeting. Does anyone wish to comment on the Secretary of State’s letter? Members indicated dissent. Should the PFG Committee’s meeting with the Secretary of State be in open or closed session? Minister Eagle attended the economic challenges subgroup yesterday, and it was conducted in open session. One member of the public attended. Mr Ford: Normal practice is to take evidence in open session, and I see no reason not to continue that. Mr McFarland: How open is that? Are we announcing in the press that that will take place? Are we holding that session in the Senate Chamber? Fifty people may attend if we advertise it. We all love being in touch with the electorate. The difficulty with this is that the aim of the Committee is to get straight and honest answers from the Secretary of State about what is going on, because the Committee needs that information to make sense of it. While under most other circumstances, a public session would be laudable, the danger is that I could nearly write the Secretary of State’s replies to almost all of these questions, if he knows that he will be sitting there with 50 people present, including the press. The meeting should be reported in Hansard. The whole idea is to try to persuade the Secretary of State to tell us things that he does not want to tell us. That is the essence of having him here. We may try to extricate from him some sense on, for example, his Glenties speech. However, if he knows that he will be sitting in front of the press, we will simply get the same old stuff that he has given us already. I think the Committee would get more out of it if the session were in private. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Shall we lock the door and not let him out until he answers? Mr McFarland: There may be merit in that. Mr Ford: I am sure that Mr McFarland has a point, but I do not think it necessarily any more likely that we will get full and open answers from the Secretary of State before five parties, their researchers and the Assembly staff than we would if there were a television camera in the room. I suspect that the Secretary of State will be in public mode once there is more than one person in the room. Mr G Kelly: I agree with Mr Ford. The Secretary of State will behave as though it were a public meeting anyway. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): As to the Senate Chamber, the Committee Clerk is checking its availability. Mr McFarland: If we publicise this meeting, we could get quite a lot of interest. It is the first time that the Secretary of State will have been grilled on policing and justice by an Assembly Committee with all five parties present. That is not what I mean. We are not grilling the Secretary of State. If we were, he would not come, as he has said previously. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): With regard to the meeting with the Secretary of State, members should give advance notice of questions they wish to ask him or issues they wish to raise with him. We will move on to the issue of firearms and explosives. We need to make a decision on this matter. Mr Moore has researched the subject. Mr T Moore: The Committee has considered the devolution of powers over firearms at a number of meetings. At the last meeting, the Committee decided that it would be useful to have in place all possible options. At tab 3 of members’ packs, a table sets out six possible options. I will explain the table to members. At the top, a distinction is drawn between “prohibited weapons” and “other firearms”. “Prohibited weapons” are those for which the Secretary of State’s permission is required for possession, manufacture or sale. “Other firearms” do not require such permission. That is the key distinction. For both groups, the Committee has a range of options. The first, entitled “full devolution”, involves transfer of full responsibility for legislation, policy and general oversight. That includes the power, held at present by the Secretary of State, to grant authority to hold, manufacture and sell weapons. It also includes “full responsibility for legislation, policy and general oversight” for all other weapons. In that option, all powers relating to firearms are devolved. The second option is where full responsibility for legislation, policy and general oversight is not devolved, but the Secretary of State’s power to grant authority to hold, etc, is devolved. That also involves devolution of powers over “other firearms”. The third option — the one considered in the NIO discussion document on policing and justice — is the Scottish model. It is an unusual combination. The Secretary of State has the power to grant authority for the possession of prohibited weapons, but there would be only limited responsibility for other firearms. For example, the Minister for Justice in Scotland can grant a museum the authority to hold weapons without a firearm certificate. That is the nature of the limited powers. 10.15 am Options, 4, 5, and 6 do not allow for any devolution of prohibited weapons; devolution is restricted to other types of firearms. The fourth option covers fully devolved responsibilities such as legislation, policy and oversight. The fifth option allows for only some aspects of full devolution; for example, granting certificates and authorities to museums, changing fees, or the duration of a certificate. Those functions could be devolved to the Minister. Under option 6, which deals with current arrangements, control of firearms is a reserved matter. Those are the six options. Mr Attwood said that he noticed that the NIO’s letter of 29 August stated that, in relation to the Secretary of State’s authority, it might be desirable to have devolution, but not at this time. The first three options could all be prefaced by some reference to the words “but not at this time”. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do members have any questions? Mr Moore has given details of prohibited weapons. Mr T Moore: A list of the prohibited weapons is set out in article 45 of the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do members have any questions? Lord Morrow: Is the Committee being asked to now decide the option with which it can sit comfortably? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Yes. A couple of meetings have been put back, and a decision must be made so that it can be included in the report. We must decide to have either full devolution or one of the other options. Mr G Kelly: This matter has come up a number of times, and the information on it is helpful. However, I propose that the Committee goes for option 1. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Option 1 is full devolution. Lord Morrow: I propose that we go for option 5. Mr McFarland: The Committee decided during its previous discussion on this matter that it would make sense if legislation and prohibited weapons were reserved, but that control of other firearms — mainly shotguns, etc — should be devolved. Whether that is done immediately depends on the direction in which discussions on policing go. Mr D Bradley: The SDLP supports option 1. Mr Ford: Alan McFarland’s logic implies that he favours an arrangement that is somewhere between options 2 and 3. Mr McFarland: The Ulster Unionists would be happy if responsibility for other firearms were devolved. I cannot see a situation in which anyone would want to have rocket launchers or anything else that is mentioned on the list of prohibited weapons. Therefore, decisions on prohibited weapons would be better left at a national level. It would be sensible if legislative responsibility for such weapons remained centralised for the United Kingdom as a whole. Mr Ford: The Alliance Party sees the sense in leaving legislative responsibility for both categories at UK level. That logically leads us toward the Scottish model at option 3, in which there are powers to grant authority and also some limited local responsibility. However, legislation would remain elsewhere — at least initially. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The Committee does not have consensus on any option. Does any member want to put forward a proposal? Mr G Kelly: I propose that the Committee adopts option 1. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do members agree? Members indicated dissent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do members have any other proposals? Mr D Bradley: In the light of the fact that the first proposal has not achieved consensus, I suggest that we adopt option 4, which proposes that powers over all firearms, except prohibited weapons, be devolved. Mr Ford: Would Mr Bradley like that to happen immediately, or is it an aspiration? Mr D Bradley: On devolution. Mr Ford: The Alliance Party would have difficulty with it if it were proposed to happen immediately after restoration of devolution. Mr D Bradley: I will accept then that it should happen as soon as possible after restoration of devolution. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The proposal is to adopt option 4 as soon as possible after restoration of devolution. Do we have consensus? Members indicated dissent. Mr S Wilson: The DUP would have preferred the current arrangements, but option 4 is a reasonable compromise. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We do not have consensus on that proposal. The next item on the agenda is “Residual Justice Issues”. Mr Attwood made a proposal on that matter last week, and Mr Bradley will follow up on that. Mr D Bradley: The SDLP believes that the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) should provide reasons and sufficient details, in general cases, in the interest of victims. The PPS should also provide reasons and sufficient details where public interest is heightened and public confidence threatened, in sensitive cases. The British Government were most unhelpful in earlier negotiations on this key issue. In the light of experience over the past three years, the situation needs to be reviewed and the PPS policy of not providing reasons must be reconsidered. Mr G Kelly: I agree with Mr Bradley. This has been an ongoing debate, and it deals with controversial cases. I am reminded of one particular case, in the Markets area of Belfast, where there has been no prosecution even though all the evidence is there. It is a pernicious attempt to obstruct justice. However, I am unsure whether Mr Attwood’s proposal for the Government and the PPS to review their policies is the correct course of action. The proposal should be amended to state that this Committee calls on Criminal Justice Inspection (CJINI) to review the policy of the PPS on the publication of reasons where there has been a failure to prosecute and the collapse of prosecutions. Mr D Bradley: I accept that amendment. Mr S Wilson: Could you read the amendment again? Mr G Kelly: This Committee calls on CJINI to review the policy of the PPS on the publication of reasons where there has been a failure to prosecute and the collapse of prosecutions. Mr S Wilson: That is not an amendment. That is the original motion. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The difference is the involvement of CJINI. Mr G Kelly: Instead of the Government and the PPS reviewing their own policies, it would be CJINI. We believe that it would be better situated there. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Does anyone wish to comment on that? Do we have consensus on Mr Attwood’s proposal, as amended? Mr McFarland: CJINI has a specific role, which is that of watchdog for the criminal justice system. It is not there to review policies. I am content to go with the business of reviewing policy — the outcome of that review would be a different matter — but it is not the role of CJINI. Its role is to ensure that things work properly and are not out of order. As I understand it, CJINI does not have a role in reviewing matters in that way. Mr G Kelly: Mr McFarland is right, to a certain extent. I would have had this done under criminal justice oversight, but that mechanism has run its course, and any work remaining under its jurisdiction has now gone to Criminal Justice Inspection. That is why I chose Criminal Justice Inspection, which sits outside the system. Asking any public prosecution service to review its policy would not be effective. That is a matter of human nature. We want an outside body to do that work. It will have the experience; its job is inspection of policy and practice. Mr S Wilson: I take Mr McFarland’s point. I am not too clear on the role of Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, but my understanding was that its job was simply to look at policies to see whether or not they were being properly applied and whether the criminal justice agencies were doing their jobs properly. However, I am not sure that to direct a change in policy or to make new policy is part of its role. It may well be that all it can do is make the same requests as this motion — that is to say: “We do not like what you are doing. Review your policy.” Is it not far better to say that we want the policy reviewed, rather than take this other circuitous route? I could be wrong, but I believe that that is all that can be done anyway. If it was concluded that a review was in the public interest or that there was sufficient impact on the public when decisions not to prosecute are made and no reasons are given, the Government should go back and look at that policy. Surely all we are doing is cutting out the middleman and saying that that is what we believe should be done. Mr G Kelly: That will be the result. The effect may be that legislation is necessary to change the current policy, which will mean involving the Government. However, the recommendations of an outside body would carry more weight. This is not just about the PPS. There would be no faith in any group investigating itself if it is already happy with its current policy. That is the difficulty. We need an outside view, but one that does not itself have the power to change things. Mr S Wilson: If there is a lot more power for — Mr McFarland: The Government decide policy. We are calling on the NIO to review the policy of the PPS. That is an independent organisation, but its policy is set by the Government. That is the normal, logical way to deal with a problem. If the stage is reached at which there is still unhappiness with policy, one might well call on Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, which is the watchdog, to revisit the matter. However, it is normal in the first instance to call on the Government to review the policy of holding back information. Mr G Kelly: Is it possible then, instead of stipulating Criminal Justice Inspection, to call for an independent review? Then we will end up hearing from every appropriate grouping. The difficulty with any review of policy is that, regardless of who carries it out, there is very little confidence that it will overturn practice. As Mr Bradley has pointed out, that has been a matter of debate for some years now. Mr McFarland: We do not know. It may be that there is a recognition, as there was in some court cases, that, eventually, a degree of transparency about what was going on was achieved. It may not have been as much as some people might have wanted, but there was a recognition that people could not simply say that they were not commenting. The political parties debated the issue in the media. As a result of that, the Committee is asking the Government to review the issue. That is not unusual; the Government decide policy. There are concerns about the Government’s impartiality on such matters. However, their reaction to this proposal might indicate whether they are being genuine and fair about the issue. If we call on them to review the policy and they make adjustments, everybody will be happy. However, if no adjustments are made, the Committee can ask Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland to consider the matter. However, in the first instance, we should not run straight to Criminal Justice Inspection without giving the Government an opportunity to reassess what they are doing. We are merely encouraging the Government to act. 10.30 am Mr G Kelly: Will Alan or Sammy write a proposal so that we know what we are considering? Mr S Wilson: As it stands, the proposal already addresses the issue of a policy review. We are expressing collective concerns about a lack of transparency where there has been a failure to prosecute. We are therefore asking the Government and the PPS to review the policy — they are the only two bodies that can do that. Calling for such a review is a stronger option than going to middlemen and asking them to examine the policy and decide whether it is being implemented properly. A middleman will do exactly what the proposal asks. I am not sure why there is reticence about the proposal; going directly to the relevant agencies is a stronger option than asking a middleman to carry out a review. That is why we support the proposal. Mr G Kelly: To explain, it is not a reticence; it is an attempt to strengthen the proposal. It is broadly felt that if an organisation investigates or reviews itself, it is already in danger. I will support the proposal, but I will argue that the reference to the Public Prosecution Service be removed. That means that the review will go straight to the Government. Mr McFarland: I would be happy with that, because the Government make the policy. That is a double-hatting issue; you could argue that the PPS is merely being alerted. We are asking the Government to examine the policy, and they will subsequently ask the PPS to undertake that examination. Mr G Kelly: I will support that. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Mr Bradley, are happy to remove the reference to the PPS from the proposal? Mr D Bradley: Yes. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do we have consensus that we should remove the reference to the PPS from the proposal and that the remainder of the proposal stands? Members indicated assent. Mr S Wilson: You will get a productivity bonus for securing agreement, Chairman. Mr D Bradley: The second proposal deals with district policing partnerships (DPPs) and community safety partnerships (CSPs). It is widely agreed that there is confusion about, and duplication in, the work of those bodies. So far, the Northern Ireland Office has been unhelpful about resolving those problems. The Review of Public Administration (RPA) creates the space in which to reconsider this matter. However, it is critical that we maintain the authority of the district policing partnerships and the policing arrangements. Mr S Wilson: Do you accept that this matter is not simply about the retention of the authority of one or other of the bodies? Do you also accept that, given the level of overlap in the work of the two bodies, and given that they sometimes make contradictory decisions, it is important that the two bodies are merged? Many community safety issues are not solely policing issues; other statutory agencies that are involved in community safety partnerships, but that work in isolation from the DPP, may deal with those issues. This is not about the dominance of one body over the other, or about which body should have priority, but about making decisions on how community safety partnerships work. The police are one of the statutory agencies, some others being local councils, education and library boards or the Roads Service. Surely all those organisations could be represented on one body that would examine problems such as youngsters annoying people by running through an entry that the Roads Service says it will not block off despite the police saying that it would be helpful if it were. Co-operation on such issues is a much more important reason for there being one body, rather than whether DPPs should have dominance over community safety partnerships, or vice versa. Mr McFarland: That has been an ongoing issue. Sammy and I sat on the first Policing Board. Throughout its existence, the Policing Board called on the NIO to deal with that issue. Interestingly, the Criminal Justice Review, published in March 2000, recommended that the organisations be merged because councillors were represented on each of them, which resulted in duplication. Essentially, the organisations do broadly the same job, except that the DPPs are statutory agencies. The CSPs were originally set up by the Government as a cunning wheeze to allow Sinn Féin to exert more influence in its areas; funds were made available for security, and all sorts of weird and wonderful things. The situation has moved on. Everyone who is involved wants the organisations to amalgamate. They cannot understand why the NIO is reluctant to do that. It would be much more effective and efficient for councils and for public safety. Mr Ford: That is not a recent suggestion. I was present at a meeting of the Committee for the Environment, in this room, when the issue of CSPs was first raised. At that stage, it was believed that there was merit in ensuring that there were joint structures. Others have agreed with that position. There is sufficient overlap of both the personnel and the remits of the two organisations that it is ludicrous to maintain separate structures. Mr G Kelly: It is my understanding that CSPs were introduced in Britain first; they pre-date the DPPs. They were not introduced into the North until later. Discussions leading up to the Good Friday Agreement centred on whether those organisations would contradict each other. That discussion continues. We should be cautious when considering the removal of DPPs. DPPs were introduced to provide communities with a mechanism by which the police could be brought to account at a local level. There are no PSNI members on DPPs, even though they attend meetings, and so on. CSPs have a different make-up. If the two organisations were to be amalgamated, the accountability mechanism that is provided by DPPs could be compromised. I am wary of that possibility. I do not object to a review in principle. Overlapping and double-jobbing does occur. However, the review should not be conducted with the intention of amalgamating the organisations in the way that Alan and Sammy have described. If the last part of the proposal — “and to maintain the authority of the policing arrangements” — is removed, Sinn Féin will consider it. Mr Ford: Gerry Kelly has a point about the ability of the DPPs to hold the local police commander to account. However, surely it is not beyond the wit of man to devise a system in which councillors, community representatives and other statutory bodies can sit down together and co-operate in order to deal with local problems. Representatives of, for example, the Roads Service or the Housing Executive would not be present for meetings between the DPP and the local police commander. The suggestion that accountability will be lost through amalgamation can be modified by the methods by which it is organised. DPPs and CSPs discuss issues that are common to both bodies. It is, therefore, pointless to maintain them separately. I accept that there is a need to ensure that there is accountability. However, that would not be impossible to arrange. Mr McFarland: Gerry is correct to say that the system of accountability must be maintained. However, the same organisation could meet in different formats, such as subcommittees or subgroups. There are two entirely different structures, with different managers, council representatives and members. In some cases, empire building has taken place. Indeed, groups have been scrapping about which of them has the authority to deal with certain issues. That is nonsense. Provided that we retain the integrity of the existing systems for holding the police to account, which are important, it should not be beyond our competence to have one organisation that meets in two formats. Mr S Wilson: Changing Mr Bradley’s proposal to ensure best practice and effectiveness and to ensure that arrangements stay in place to maintain the authority of the policing arrangements would address the point that was raised. Mr D Bradley: Our proposal calls for a review and for the operation of the two bodies to be examined. Based on the results of such a review, changes could be made. I know that Committee members have experience of the two groups that work in their areas, and they probably have suggestions and proposals to make. However, we should not pre-empt a review. If a review is proposed, we should allow it to take its course and for modifications to be made on its findings. Mr Neeson: We cannot disagree with the principle that Mr Bradley puts forward, as we cannot pre-empt the findings of a review. However, some issues need to be determined, and that is the main emphasis of the proposal. We should move forward as quickly as possible. Mr McFarland: We could change the wording slightly so that after “effectiveness” we would have: “while maintaining the authority of the policing arrangements”. Mr S Wilson: Or: “by ensuring that structures are in place to maintain the authority of the policing arrangements.” Mr G Kelly: If we want a wide-ranging debate — and to tell you the truth, I am getting nervous about where the debate is going — all that we need to do is put a full stop after “effectiveness”. That would allow us a very wide-ranging debate. I am not at all convinced that amalgamating the two groups is the proper thing to do. There is overlap of practice in both groups that needs to be sorted out; however, that is different from: “to maintain the authority of the policing arrangements”. If you want an open review, put the full stop after “effectiveness”. Mr S Wilson: That seems to contradict Sinn Féin’s previous point, which was that if the two bodies were joined, the body or format in which the police are held to account would be lost. By stopping at “effectiveness”, is Sinn Féin saying that it is no longer concerned about structures being in place to hold the police to account at local level, or does it still want a separate structure for that purpose? If the latter is the case, we are left with what we have at present. We would be reviewing the work of the two groups, but we would still have two groups. I took Mr Bradley’s proposal to mean that the work of two bodies overlapped and was sometimes contradictory and that community policing, because of how it works now, requires an holistic approach from a wide range of authorities. Therefore, it would be far better to amalgamate the two groups, while ensuring that the role of holding the police to account was not diluted or did not disappear in any such amalgamation and that there was a structure in one, new, amalgamated body that would perform that role. If we wish to have that — and I wish to have that, as, it seems, does Sinn Féin — we have to keep the last part of the proposal, but amend it so that structures are put in place to ensure that the authority of the policing arrangements is maintained. 10.45 am Mr D Bradley: As I said earlier, the proposal calls for a review, not for the amalgamation of the two bodies. It proposes that the work of the two bodies be reviewed and that action be taken on the basis of the evidence gathered during that review. Mr G Kelly: Sammy, not for the first time, has convinced me in his interpretation of our position — which is actually the DUP position — not to support this proposal. It is clear that, from the unionist and Alliance points of view, it is about amalgamation, and I am not prepared to support it. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We have three proposals; we have the main proposal and amendments to it. Mr McFarland: Why will Mr Kelly not support the proposal? Most people who have anything to do with criminal justice and policing agree that, at some level, arrangements are daft in their current form. It is not sensible to have two bodies fighting with each other at ground level and trying to work out who should deal with what. Whether we end up with an amalgamation or with the bodies remaining separate but with modified roles, — for example, the same councillors could sit on both — one could argue, as Dominic said, that that is up to the review. Most people agree that the roles of the bodies need to be looked at, and that is all that the proposal says. I do not understand why we cannot get agreement. I thought that Sinn Féin agreed in its earlier statements that a review is necessary. The proposal does not say what will come out at the far end, and we have no power as unionists to insist that the bodies be amalgamated. However, that does not stop the matter from being looked at. We seemed to have agreement that the system was not working very well, but now we do not. I do not mind what wording we have on this matter, but to consign the whole thing to the scrap heap again without examining it would be daft. Mr G Kelly: It just shows you that I am listening to unionism. You said that it is clearly about amalgamation, as did the Alliance Party. I offered earlier to put a full stop after the word “effectiveness”, which would mean the widest review. You moved away from that, which is why I am disagreeing with it on the basis of the arguments given. Mr Neeson: We cannot ignore the implications of the Review of Public Administration and the principle of community monitoring. Therefore I have no problem at all in accepting the proposal. We cannot bury our heads in the sand — there are going to be major changes. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We do not have consensus on this matter. There is a proposal from Gerry Kelly. Lord Morrow: Is there consensus that change is necessary? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I think that there is. Mr Ford: My interpretation of — Mr G Kelly: There is consensus that there is double-jobbing. Lord Morrow: I think that there is consensus that change is necessary. However, do you bring about change by saying that we should never look at this or by saying that we should? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We have a proposal, which seems to have consensus, that there should be a full stop after the word “effectiveness”. Mr McFarland: That would at least get us a review, I suppose. If the minimum that we can achieve is that somebody looks at it — Mr S Wilson: Gerry Kelly actually raised this point initially, and I was glad that he did. I simply reinforced it. In this review, it is paramount that we do not finish up with a structure that dilutes the scrutiny of the police at local level. We can change the wording of the last phrase; we are happy enough with that. It is paramount, however — and I thought that we were at one with Sinn Féin on this — that we ensure that the body we finish up with is able to hold the police to account at local level. Mr McFarland: Chairman, could Gerry suggest some words, because Sammy is right — Mr G Kelly: Change “authority” to “accountability”. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Dominic, are you happy enough with that? Mr D Bradley: I was going to suggest that we remove the phrase “and to maintain the authority” so that the proposal would read “best practice and effectiveness of the policing arrangements”. Mr S Wilson: We will live with the phrase “accountability of policing arrangements”. Mr McFarland: Gerry has suggested that the word “accountability” should replace the word “authority”, which would seem to get round everybody’s concerns. We needed to examine this proposal, and we have agreed on the word “accountability”. We are nearly there. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Does everyone agree that the word “authority” should be replaced by “accountability”? Members indicated assent. Mr S Wilson: Chairman, you will be getting an OBE out of this. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I might need something. [Laughter.] We will move on to the research on definitions of ceasefires. Mr T Moore: The Committee asked for some research on the definition of ceasefires in legislation. Mr McFarland: Chairman, could you remind us why we asked for this? I cannot recall. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): David Ford asked for it. Mr Ford: Sean Neeson requested it first, and I followed up on that request last week. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): He is to blame. Mr McFarland: Chairman, can you refresh our memory as to why it was requested? Mr Neeson: The main reason for our request was that when the initial ceasefires were announced in 1994, the Government turned a blind eye to criminality, and so forth. However, if we are to move forward it is very important that we have a clear definition of a ceasefire. Thus, should the question arise of the Secretary of State’s excluding a party or parties from the Assembly, we will be clear about the matter. Mr T Moore: Members have been given a copy of the research findings. A definition of ceasefire was found in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, and the same wording can be found in the Northern Ireland Act 1998, as amended by the Northern Ireland (Monitoring Commission etc.) Act 2003. The definitions are there for members to read, so I will not make any further comment. Additional research was carried out on international definitions, which may or may not be of interest to the Committee. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Section 30 of the Act, which deals with the exclusion of Ministers from office, is part and parcel of this issue. Mr T Moore: It is included because some of the wording in section 3(9) of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 is repeated in section 30(7) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. There is no reference to the ceasefire, but it is the same wording, so we included it for the sake of completeness. Mr Ford: I thank Tim for ascertaining that there are very few references to ceasefires in domestic legislation. Some of the international comparisons are interesting, but they are not directly relevant to our current situation. The definition of a ceasefire is somewhat less than it should be. It certainly ties in with the need for a commitment to solely peaceful and democratic means and to the Pledge of Office, which is mentioned later on the agenda. The practical reality is that the Governments have interpreted ceasefires as being an end to operations directed against the state, economic targets and “the other side”, but they have not taken into account the full range of criminality. Section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, as amended, has made some useful additions to an effective definition of a ceasefire. We must ensure that that definition is widened in the Pledge of Office. We have now reached a situation whereby the UVF can murder Craig McCausland, but that is not considered to be a breach of ceasefire, yet when the UVF fires shots at police officers — but, thankfully, do not kill any of them — it is considered to be a breach of ceasefire. That poses a fundamental moral question, which the Government have failed to answer thus far. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): If there are no other comments, we will move on to rule of law issues and further consideration of the proposals tabled by Ian Paisley Jnr. Mr S Wilson: The first proposal is self-explanatory. We had some discussion on that at the last meeting. Our view is that there must be confidence in any devolved Administration and in those who hold office in it. If there is any hint that those who hold office are associated with criminality, or are associated with and support people who are involved in criminality, it undermines the credibility of an Administration. That is an important building block if devolution is to work. One of the most important issues for us is that there should not be ambivalence about whether a Minister who will introduce legislation actually supports the rule of law. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do we have consensus on that? Mr G Kelly: No. The Pledge of Office and the exclusion of Ministers from office are done and dusted. This issue has come up several times in the past few days. Ian Paisley Jnr has been less than vociferous in his support for the actions of the PSNI. There are contradictions all around this issue. We have negotiated a Pledge of Office, and I do not intend to support either of Ian Paisley Jnr’s proposals. Mr D Bradley: The proposals would be more appropriately dealt with by the PFG Committee dealing with institutional matters. We are not against considering this issue, but it should be looked at in the context of other Pledge of Office issues, including attendance at meetings of the Executive and the North/South Ministerial Council. Support for the rule of law, or lawful society, is sensible. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The main reason that it has come to the PFG Committee in this format is for an opinion. If there is no consensus, it will be referred to the PFG Committee dealing with institutional matters. Dr Farren: What is the intended import of the proposal? I have no difficulty with the idea that if a Minister is guilty of a crime, he or she will cease to be a Minister. What is the effect? Is it to leave it to me, or to someone like me, to say: “Fred is involved in crime, and therefore he cannot be a Minister”? I say “Fred” only because I am looking at Mr Cobain. I have not participated in this debate before, and I fail to see the import of the proposal. Mr S Wilson: Read the first proposal. It states: “association with, or support for”. You are quite right: a Minister will lose his job if he is involved in crime. Dr Farren: I am reading “association” and “involved” as being similar. Mr S Wilson: I am not sure that that is the case. Being involved means that the person is directly involved in criminal activity. Equally important in building confidence in those who hold office is that they should not be seen to be associated with, or supporting, those who are involved in criminal activity. There is a difference. If the phrase were simply “involved in criminal activity”, there would be no need for the proposal because once a Minister had been caught, charged and found guilty, they would be out of office anyway. This proposal goes beyond that. There is a confidence issue if Ministers are ambivalent towards people who are involved in fuel laundering, money laundering, drug dealing or whatever, while not being involved in, or being found guilty of, those things themselves. Dr Farren: Anyone who watched ‘Spotlight’ last night would be very concerned about the use of the word “association” in this context, given what has transpired in relation to the issues that were highlighted in that programme. The word “association” has led to a terrible tragedy for one individual. If the Committee believes what that individual said last night, it would exercise caution when including the word “association” in the proposal. Mr Bradley has said where the SDLP considers such issues would be best raised, rather than in the Committee. 11.00 am Mrs D Dodds: Surely Dr Farren is talking about the need for strong accountability mechanisms to hold the police to account. There must be a strong accountability mechanism to deal with wrong actions, and there is confusion about that. It is a law-and-order issue, and it is of paramount importance that those who hold the highest office in the land support the police and be separate from any association — or perception of association — with criminality. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Is there consensus on the proposal? Members indicated dissent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We will move on to the next proposal. Mr S Wilson: The previous proposal may be better discussed in another format of the PFG Committee, as it relates to the Pledge of Office. The DUP is happy for it to be referred to the PFG Committee dealing with institutional issues. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The Committee now has a proposal in the name of Alex Attwood in relation to policing and justice. Mr D Bradley: The SDLP proposes devolution of justice on day one of restoration. We believe that if there is sufficient confidence to go into Government, there should be sufficient confidence for those powers to be devolved. Mr G Kelly: This is the third or fourth time that this issue has been raised — and that is not the wording of the proposal. The proposal states that it “is not at this time able to define when.” When the Committee discussed this issue previously, it was put to the DUP that, if the institutions are restored, it would surely accept that all the parties involved are fit for Government. The DUP would not give even an indicative time frame of when policing and justice could be transferred. The terms ”as soon as possible” or “we cannot define it yet” are meaningless. In December 2004, the emphasis was on a two-year period or halfway through an Assembly term. The Committee has debated this over and over again. I do not know why the issue is being raised again, because there will not be consensus. Mr S Wilson: First, this discussion is not meaningless. I borrowed the term “as soon as possible” from a Sinn Féin representative who talked about “as soon as possible”. Mr G Kelly: I am glad that you are reading our stuff. Mr S Wilson: The Sinn Féin representative is not here today so I will not name him or he might get into trouble. Secondly, the term “as soon as possible” is borrowed from the comprehensive agreement. Other parties have used it on a number of occasions. There was a long discussion about whether conditions would be met for devolving power to other Departments, and whether or not policing and justice could be devolved at the same time. That has always been accepted, even up until the passing of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006 in the House of Commons — which, incidentally the three SDLP MPs supported. It has always been accepted that there would be separate arrangements and separate timing for the devolution of policing and justice, subsequent to the devolution of powers to other Departments. Policing and justice was seen as a particularly sensitive issue that could only be effectively devolved when there was confidence that the institutions were working properly and not being abused. That has been the position of the SDLP. If that position has changed, perhaps the SDLP can explain why. Until July, when the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006 became law, the SDLP was supporting separate arrangements for policing and justice, requiring that devolution be brought forward jointly by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, then subject to a vote in the Assembly — the SDLP accepted that the Assembly would have to be in place — and then it would go to Westminster for the necessary legislation, enabling powers being already there. Obviously all the other structures would have had to be in place before that could happen. This is not a new position. It has been our position, and it has been held, as Mr McFarland pointed out, by those who signed the Belfast Agreement in 1998, when the comprehensive agreement was discussed a couple of years ago and when the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill was going through Parliament this year. No one should be startled that the DUP supports a subsequent arrangement for policing and justice. The reason is that devolution of policing will be the ultimate test of confidence in the parties’ willingness to work within the structures set up in Northern Ireland and within the rule of law. It will require that we see that Ministers and those in the Assembly have operated properly and worked the structures properly and that, therefore, there is confidence in the community. “As soon as possible” was the phrase that indicated our intent. The accusation has always been made that the DUP is deliberately dragging its heels. We are not dragging our heels, and that phrase is designed to convey that we want to ensure that when devolution of policing and justice powers occurs, it will work. Mr Attwood has added that the parties have all had different definitions of that. This was a genuine attempt to convey to all the other parties that the DUP aspires to devolution of policing and justice as quickly as possible. However, it is not entirely within our power. To set timescales would be wrong. If that were done, parties would work towards a date, rather than towards meeting the conditions necessary to build up confidence. By not setting a date, but by laying down the necessary conditions, we hope that people will focus on those, rather than sit on their hands, wait for the date to come, and then claim that there is a crisis because the date has not been met. Mr G Kelly: No one is astounded that this is the DUP position. Sammy is right that it has been consistent to that extent. The problem is that the DUP does not want to give a time frame. It wants to have a veto, and Sammy has described the way he is going to use it. First, the DUP sets the bar for setting up the institutions as high as it possibly can — it is holding back the restoration of the institutions. Then it wants to have its cake and eat it — it wants to get to the point of restoration and then have another go at policing and justice. The DUP tells us to stall, and that it will decide who is fit to be involved in policing and justice and who is not. That is what this is about. It is an argument against setting any time frame. Even Sammy’s description of the ultimate test shows that the DUP will be the arbiters of that test. They want to be in charge of everything. Sinn Féin will not support that. There should be a time frame. There is no logical reason for the DUP to refuse to give even an indicative time frame; it just refuses to give it. This could go on for ten years. The DUP should show its intent by agreeing to a time frame — something, incidentally, that it was on board for in December 2004. Dr Farren: The SDLP believes that devolution should include policing and justice. That is not unlikely, but, assuming that the institutions will be restored, the imperative must be to work to ensure that devolution of policing and justice occurs as soon as possible, recognising the procedures that are broadly as Sammy Wilson has set them out. The SDLP wants all parties to make a concerted effort, because, when devolution is restored, we will be bound to work together on all issues for which we will have responsibility. If devolution of policing and justice is not possible from day one, we should work together to set down a short and indicative timetable, in which commitments will be made and confidence built up so that we can realistically put a more precise timeframe on the devolution of policing and justice. It would probably be easier to do that now, as our hopes are that devolution will be restored, but we cannot be 100% certain about that. Therefore, we urge the parties to find a way — it should not be difficult — when devolution is restored, or the prospect of it emerges over the next few weeks, to begin to address the issue. Ultimately, it will be a litmus test of the parties’ commitment to the institutions, that we are all fully committed to supporting, as we are to holding to account, the agencies for law and order. Mr McFarland: I can see before me the mists of my crystal ball clearing. I can see the end of October when the terms and conditions laid down by the DUP — criminality, paramilitarism and support for policing — are all within reach: halcyon days. I can see a Government being formed at the beginning of December when Sinn Féin has met the DUP’s requirements. Then, early next year, the DUP will see Sinn Féin giving its full support for policing and encouraging young republicans from Crossmaglen to join the police, and all criminality reported by the Independent Monitoring Commission (IMC) will have ended. At that stage, confidence may have risen enough — Lord Morrow: When does this dream end? Mr McFarland: — for the Assembly to take a cross-community vote on the devolution of policing and justice, because, in the end, it has to come from the Assembly. It will require a cross-community vote, and that will require the parties to agree. The deal from the beginning has been that the Assembly will ask for the devolution of policing and justice when the time is right. If Sinn Féin played the game, accepted the rule of law and supported the police, the DUP would realise that it was serious and genuine, and there would not be an issue over this. However, at the moment, there is an issue. My strong sense is that we will not reach agreement today. It will probably go into the melting pot for some sort of deal in early October, with pressure from the DUP to accept it and from Sinn Féin to demand some sort of timescale. I do not think that we will reach agreement on this today. Mr S Wilson: Your crystal ball tells you quite a lot. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do we have consensus on the proposal? Members indicated dissent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The next item on the agenda is “Devolution of appointments to, and the operation of, the Parades Commission”. At the meeting of 16 August, members agreed to refer to the PFG Committee dealing with rights; safeguards; equality issues and victims, the matter of whether appointments to the Parades Commission and its operation should be devolved to the Assembly. Mr McFarland: Did we not deal with this last week? I have a sense of déjà vu. I thought that there was no consensus and that the proposal fell. The Committee Clerk: It was discussed at last Friday’s PFG Committee meeting dealing with rights; safeguards; equality issues and victims, which is now reporting back to this Committee. 11.15 am Mr McFarland: Did that Committee deal with this matter or has it been referred to this Committee to deal with? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The Committee on rights; safeguards; equality issues and victims considered the matter last Friday but did not reach consensus on whether the power should be devolved. Mr McFarland: Therefore, the parties did not reach consensus at Friday’s PFG Committee meeting. If that is the case, is it not merely a formality raising it again here today? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The Committee must make a decision on the devolution of appointments to, and the operation of, the Parades Commission. It appeared under the heading of “Public Order” in the table that accompanied the letter from the NIO dated 15 August 2006. Do we have consensus on the proposal? Mr McFarland: I thought that Sinn Féin objected. Mr S Wilson: Do not encourage them. Mr McFarland: Somebody objected; there is no question about that. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do we have consensus? Mr McFarland: Let me do a double take. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The Committee Clerk will read the proposal again. Alan is surprised; that is why he wants it read out again. Mr McFarland: I am surprised because one of the parties around the table was definite that the appointments to, and the operation of, the Parades Commission would not be devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I got the impression that the proposal did not have a snowball’s chance of getting consensus. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Things move on. Mr S Wilson: They have changed their mind. Mr McFarland: It is not they who were changing, Sammy; your team was majoring on that. The Committee Clerk: The proposal is that appointments to, and the operation of, the Parades Commission be devolved. Dr Farren: We need clarification on what is meant by “devolved”. Appointments to public bodies are either within the authority of a Minister or, centrally, within the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. If we are talking about the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister having the responsibility, I would be more sympathetic to the use of the word “devolved”. However, if we are talking about devolving authority to the Assembly — the Assembly, in a massive vote, deciding the membership of the Parades Commission — I would be of a different mind. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Members might not have a copy of the letter and the table, so the Clerk will remind you of its contents. The Committee Clerk: Members may recall the letter from the Secretary of State’s office dated 15 August and the accompanying table listing matters that may or may not be devolved. The Committee worked its way through those matters. The letter can be found towards the back of the draft report. Mr McFarland: The PFG Committee dealing with rights; safeguards; equality issues and victims had several lengthy discussions on the issue. There is a difficulty in firing it in here without the background discussion or without refreshing ourselves about the issues, because those of us who are not on the Friday team, and who have not had the benefit of hearing the arguments, are being asked to take decisions without having heard the information required to understand the arguments. I am slightly concerned. The PFG Committee dealing with rights; safeguards; equality issues and victims has made a decision on the issue. We must keep reminding ourselves that, although the PFG Committee meets in different formats, if the Committee makes a decision: that decision stands. There are not three separate Committees. If you are happy to refresh us on the arguments, Mr Chairman, we can get up to speed and reach a common level of understanding. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): It may be safer to accept the report of the PFG Committee dealing with rights; safeguards; equality issues and victims, in which consensus was not reached. Mrs D Dodds: There was no consensus? Mr McFarland: Let me give an example. Our party believes that the Parades Commission should be scrapped. Therefore, whether responsibility for the Parades Commission is devolved is not an issue for us. The PFG Committee dealing with human rights; safeguards; equality and victims has had a series of discussions on the Parades Commission. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): There is no point in rehearsing those arguments again today. Mr McFarland: Seán had a point about public appointments. A range of issues is involved. It is a thorny and sensitive subject from all points of view. The Committee had a full debate on it, and I understood that it had been agreed that a decision could not be taken, for various reasons. I would be slightly worried that, if a decision were taken in this format of the PFG Committee, we would end up firing shots in the dark. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We should perhaps rule that when the Committee makes a decision, that is the end of it, and the matter in question should not be revisited. The PFG Committee dealing with rights; safeguards; equality issues and victims considered the issue on Friday but did not reach consensus. Do we accept that? Dr Farren: I am not sure whether you are in a position to answer my question, Chairman. That format of the PFG Committee made that decision notwithstanding the fact that the Secretary of State’s note states that the Government’s preference is for responsibility for the Parades Commission to be devolved. It does not define what devolution — in the sense that I referred to a few minutes ago — might mean. Nonetheless, the NIO discussion paper ‘Devolving Policing and Justice’ states: “The Government’s preference is that responsibility for all aspects of parades, including appointments to the Parades Commission and its operation, should be devolved.” Does Friday’s decision mean that the Committee, having considered this issue, accepts in principle that responsibility for the Parades Commission should be a devolved matter, but was not clear as to what devolving it might entail? Mr McFarland: The Committee could not agree because my party and the DUP share the view that the Parades Commission should be scrapped. Therefore, to agree that its functions should be devolved is illogical. Many other issues were involved. For example, would decisions about the commission be taken on the Floor of the Assembly? In that case, everything must be determined by cross-community vote and the issue could become bogged down as a result of the Assembly rowing about it. Would decisions rest with OFMDFM? There are issues with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister being in charge of the parades issues. Does responsibility for parades remain in London, where it is out of our hair? Decisions taken there may be viewed as being more impartial. There is a view that the parades issues should stay out of Northern Ireland politics. All debates on the issue are in Hansard. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): There was no consensus on the issue at Friday’s meeting of the PFG Committee. Mr McFarland: No, we simply could not agree. It has been parked for the talks. I do not know whether the issue, and where responsibility for it should rest, will be included in all parties’ agendas. Dr Farren: For clarification, do the unionist parties — since they seem to have the same views on the Parades Commission — believe that, at present, responsibility for the Parades Commission should not be devolved? Lord Morrow: Both parties think that the commission should be scrapped, but can you repeat the question? Dr Farren: Whatever form the Parades Commission takes, is the unionist position that the commission’s functions should not be devolved, notwithstanding the Government’s preference — and ours — is that they be devolved? Mr McFarland: Off the top of my head, I cannot recall. With the PFG Committee meeting three times a week in its different formats, they all morph into each other sometimes. Dr Farren: That is fine. We can defer it until another day. Mr McFarland: I need to refresh my memory. We have had several weeks of lengthy, detailed discussions on the parades issue; we can have another discussion if we want. Lord Morrow: Can we defer this issue? It seems that members need to refresh their memories of their own parties’ positions, never mind those of other parties. Dr Farren: I hope that you are speaking for yourself. [Laughter.] Lord Morrow: Could we discuss this issue next week? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We are trying to finalise the report, but we can return to this issue next week. Mr McFarland: The PFG Committee dealing with rights; safeguards; equality issues and victims has discussed culture and parades under the umbrella of human rights, equality and culture. The issue has presumably returned to the PFG Committee dealing with law-and-order issues only because the decisions of the Parades Commission could affect the police, which would come under the area of law and order. Parading, as such, is not a law-and-order issue. I am slightly confused that the PFG Committee dealing with rights; safeguards; equality issues and victims has not taken a decision on that, as the issue falls within its remit. I am also confused as to why the issue has appeared before this format of the PFG Committee. Mr Ford: Surely the Parades Commission, as an agency, is a justice issue, and responsibility for parades and the commission could potentially be devolved. Therefore, it is absolutely within the remit of the PFG dealing with law-and-order issues. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The issue overlaps with this format of the PFG Committee, in respect of policing, and the PFG Committee dealing with rights; safeguards; equality issues and victims, in respect of equality. We can defer discussion of the decision of the PFG Committee dealing with rights; safeguards; equality issues and victims until parties have reviewed their positions, and we can revisit the issue. The decision will probably not change. The next item on the agenda is our initial draft report. We shall go through the report, line by line. The Committee shall continue in private session. The Committee met in private session from 11.27 am to 12.18 pm. On resuming — 12.18 pm The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Does the Clerk wish to deal with the Hansard issue? The Committee Clerk: There has been some discussion about the 48-hour turnaround time. The Editor of Debates has explained that sometimes the draft report of a meeting is cleared only at 7.30 pm or 8.00 pm and that — by the time it has been given to us the next morning and printed — it may be a day before we can get it to Committee members. If members wish to provide an e-mail address, we could get the draft report to them at 7.30 pm or 8.30 pm. Mr S Wilson: Are there people who have sleepless nights because they do not receive the Hansard report? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Some bedtime reading. The Committee Clerk: The offer has been made by the Editor of Debates so that members can have the report immediately. Mr Raymond McCartney: It was agreed at an earlier meeting that a copy would be sent to the administration offices of each party. Can we ensure that that is done? The Committee Clerk: Do you mean copies of the reports? Mr Raymond McCartney: Yes: copies of the Hansard reports, and the file that we received this morning. Mr S Wilson: I would like clarification about the Committee report that we will receive next week. First, that areas of agreement and areas of lack of consensus will be highlighted. Secondly, that “impediments” will be changed to — The Committee Clerk: “Issues to be resolved by parties”, or something along those lines. Mr S Wilson: Thirdly, that any changes we discussed today will be included as additional material for discussion in a couple of weeks. Mr Ford: Do you have senior moments as well as Gerry? Mr S Wilson: It makes for easier reading. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): It is important, when signing off the Committee report next week, that members have a clear idea of what they want it to contain or of any changes that they want to make to it. That should be done fairly speedily, but members should have a clear idea of what they want. The Committee Clerk: Probably the most important issue that we need to resolve is the parties’ view on what is or is not a potential impediment to devolution. We might need a rewording of “impediments” in the tables in the “Conclusions” section of the Committee report. Parties need to come back to the Committee to state which issues are, or are not, potential impediments to devolution and which, therefore, might need to be referred for resolution later. Mr S Wilson: Will they be referred to the discussions later in the autumn? The Committee Clerk: We will put some words together so that members can look at the issues again next week to finalise them. Mr S Wilson: I ask this because I am not clear on the matter. If we mean issues that have still to be resolved, we could probably tick all the boxes. The word “impediment” attaches some importance — perhaps too much — to those issues. I want to be clear about the matter when I go back to our party group: what exactly are we being asked to tick? Is it that a certain matter is of such importance that it is a deal-breaker; is it that it is important enough to be included in negotiations, or is it that the matter is less important? The Committee Clerk: That is why we had difficulty in writing up the document. As you say, there is a whole range of issues. The remit of the Committee is to scope the issues that need to be addressed in preparation for Government, and the issues that have not been agreed but which need to be addressed in preparation for Government. That is what the report will highlight. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): When we go through the issues, we might find that nothing needs to be highlighted. Mr Cobain: I agree with you, Chairman. Dr Farren: Are you prepared to negotiate? Mr Cobain: Absolutely not. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The next meeting of the PFG Committee dealing with law-and-order issues will take place on Wednesday 13 September. The Committee Clerk: May I remind members that this Committee will meet as usual next Wednesday at 10.00 am and that, because of possible plenary sittings next Monday and Tuesday, the PFG Committee dealing with institutional issues will meet next Wednesday afternoon? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): A revised work plan is being passed around. It is important that members note the start times for next Wednesday’s meetings. Adjourned at 12.26 pm. |