COMMITTEE ON THE Friday 8 September 2006 Members in attendance for all or part of proceedings: The Committee met at 10.15 am. (The Chairman (Mr Molloy) in the Chair.) The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I remind members to switch off their mobile phones. We hope to have lunch at 12.20 pm and are planning to have high tea at 5.00 pm, if that is OK. In addition to apologies, are there are any deputies? Mr Ferguson: Caitríona and I are deputising for Conor Murphy and Michelle Gildernew. Mr Attwood: I am standing in for Mark Durkan. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Seán is here as of right. Is that correct? Dr Farren: Yes. Mr Ford: I have to leave shortly. I am not sure of Naomi’s whereabouts. I will check that out. Mr Nesbitt: I am here in place of Alan McFarland, and Derek Hussey will be here to deputise for Danny Kennedy, I think. Mr McNarry: I am here as of right. Lord Morrow: I believe that I am here as of right also. I expect a couple of others to join us shortly. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): There are two issues. First, the draft report on economic challenges is to be presented to the Assembly in plenary on Monday. Normally, copies of the report would be sent out to those who gave evidence to the subgroup, and a copy of the report is included in members’ bundles today. Are members content that copies of the draft report, which is embargoed until the start of Monday’s debate, be sent out to contributors? Mr Nesbitt: Are we agreed that a draft report — The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I am sorry. It is the final report of the Subgroup on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland. It will be presented at Monday’s debate. Mr Nesbitt: I am sorry. I thought you meant that it was a draft report. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I am sorry; that was my mistake. Are members agreed that it can be sent to witnesses? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Also included in members’ packs is a copy of a press release from the subgroup. Are members content with the press release? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Let us move on to the draft minutes of the meeting of 1 September 2006. Mr Nesbitt: Just before they are approved, Mr Chairman, may I draw your attention to page one of the minutes? The minutes state that I attended the meeting as a DUP representative. Although I know that the DUP would love me to be a member of their party, I am still a member of the Ulster Unionist Party. Mr Ferguson: That must have been wishful thinking. Mr Nesbitt: A little change is required there. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): That might have got you some extra news headlines over the weekend. Mr Nesbitt: Perhaps the silly season is not quite over yet. Lord Morrow: Lawrie Sanchez is making all the news; you are all right, Dermot. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are there any other corrections? Mr Attwood: I do not wish to be contentious, but I believe that what was agreed — just before Mr Ferguson left the meeting — has been expressed in a rather uneasy way. It is true that Nelson McCausland made a proposal that British passports should be made available to citizens born in the Republic of Ireland after 1941. However, it would have been more accurate to say that there may be citizens of the Irish Republic born after 1941 who may want a British passport. That is more accurate, because the draft minutes suggest that British passports should be made available to “citizens” — which could mean everybody. I believe that Nelson only intended the proposal to be that there may be citizens born after 1941 who may want a British passport, and that the matter should be referred to the two Governments for their consideration. That is a more accurate way of expressing what was agreed, rather than what could be interpreted as a more general invitation for the people of the Republic to obtain British passports. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The other issue was that, in fact, the Republic of Ireland Act came into force in 1949. Mr Attwood: Mr McCausland had a reason for stipulating 1941 and not 1949. Dr Farren: It should be 1949. Mr Attwood: Mr McCausland was insistent that it was 1941. Mr Ford: There were no citizens of the Republic in 1941 — they were citizens of the Free State. Mr Ferguson: It does not need to be addressed until later. The minutes suggest that there was all-party agreement to Nelson McCausland’s proposal; in fact there was not. My colleague, Philip McGuigan, stated that Sinn Féin did not support it. However, I am content to discuss the matter later. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do you wish to correct the minutes? Mr Ferguson: No. Nevertheless, it is related. Mr Attwood: There was consensus on the proposal, and Hansard will reflect that. Mr Ferguson: If I had agreed to the proposal, I would not be suggesting otherwise. Mr Attwood: Hansard will reflect that there was consensus on the proposal; no one objected to it. However, there was some toing and froing before consensus was achieved. The consensus was that some citizens of the Irish Republic might want to avail of a British passport, and that therefore the matter should be considered by the two Governments. There was no prescription in that consensus — there was merely an invitation for the two Governments to consider the proposal, and that is where consensus was achieved. Ms Ruane: I did not attend the meeting, but Philip McGuigan stated that Sinn Féin did not support the proposal. However, we will raise the matter when we discuss the draft report, because we feel that that is an inaccuracy. Lord Morrow: Was it recorded in Hansard? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We will make reference to Hansard now. The Committee Clerk: In last week’s report, there was a discussion about whether the Republic of Ireland Act came into force in 1941 or 1949. Mr McCausland now says that there might have been a typographical error in his notes, which is why we have raised it again today. The correct date should be 1949. The Chairman then discussed the proposal on passports and asked whether there was consensus. Mr McGuigan said that specific requirements and needs of the people in the North were made clear in the Good Friday Agreement. Then he said: “On that basis Sinn Féin does not support the proposal.” — [Official Report, Bound Volume 20, col 2, p CPG269]. There was further discussion about referring the matter to the two Governments, which Mr Attwood raised, and Mr McGuigan then said: “I made my comments based on the proposal before me. Sinn Féin is content for the two Governments to have consultations, but it is not a major impediment to restoration of the Executive.” — [Official Report, Bound Volume 20, col 1, p CPG270]. The Chairman then asked: “Do we have consensus that the two Governments consider this issue?” — [Official Report, Bound Volume 20, col 1, p CPG270]. Members indicated assent. Mr Attwood: That is precisely what I have just said. Lord Morrow: Therefore there was consensus. Mr Attwood: That is all there was consensus on. To reassure Sinn Féin, the proposal did not instruct the two Governments to go in a certain direction; it suggested that the two Governments consider an issue that the DUP felt may have some relevance for the citizens of the Irish Republic. Lord Morrow: The minutes simply state that it should be referred to the two Governments, and there was consensus on that. Mr Attwood: That is not a threat to anyone around the table — Mr McGuigan acknowledged that at the previous meeting. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): He raised the issue, but it was referred to in a different way. Mr Attwood: That is where we should sign off on it, because it not will interfere or prejudice any party’s ideology. That is not the issue. Ms Ruane: We want to discuss the matter in relation to rights and safeguards because it has been misrepresented in the document. The issue has become confused; therefore we need to read through the minutes and discuss it further. Mr Ferguson: Two issues are involved: one is that the proposal was agreed, and the other is that it was agreed that there should be a discussion on the proposal. Those two separate issues have been collapsed into one in paragraph 48 of the draft report. Therefore we have an issue with that paragraph. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We are now dealing with the minutes; we can deal with the report later. I want to focus on the minutes for now. Are members agreed that the matter should be referred to the two Governments for consideration? Nothing is being forced. Mr Attwood: I remember indicating that that was a way to move things along. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Will we change 1941 to 1949? Are members happy with the minute as it stands? Mr Attwood: The minutes have to be changed to reflect the fact that there was consensus that the matter should be referred to the two Governments for consideration as there was an issue around whether citizens born in the Irish Republic after 1949 might be entitled to British passports. We could change it to something of that nature. The Committee Clerk: Perhaps you would be content if we amended the minute to read: “The issue of whether a British passport should be made available to citizens born in the Republic of Ireland after 1949 should be referred to the two Governments for consideration.” The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are members happy with that? Mr Attwood: I think that Lord Morrow’s point was that there may be a category of citizens in the Irish Republic who want to apply for a British passport. The word “citizens” suggests that the proposal applies to a much broader group of people, up to and including all citizens of the Irish Republic. I do not think that was the intention behind the DUP’s proposal, but that is for the DUP to say. My understanding of the proposal was that it applied to a category of citizens who may wish to avail of that option and that that matter should be considered by the two Governments. There was consensus that that should be the height of the proposal. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Can I have a suggested wording, please? Mr McNarry: The phrase “some citizens” could be used. A Member: Or “there may be citizens”. Mr Attwood: I suggest that the wording should be: “That the matter be referred to the two Governments for consideration if there is any citizen, or category of citizen, who may wish to avail of that option.” That should satisfy all concerns. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are members happy with that? Mr Attwood: This minute is trying to reflect what was agreed last week: following discussion of whether British passports should be made available to any category of citizen of the Irish Republic, it was agreed that the matter should be referred to the two Governments for further consideration. I think that it was agreed that we could not tell the two Governments what to do because the matter had to be worked out at intergovernmental level — if anything was to be worked out at all. That is how the discussion reached that point. I believe that the amended wording that I proposed should satisfy all members’ needs and would not pose a threat to anybody’s ideology. The Committee Clerk: I am not sure whether I have picked up Alex’s suggestion correctly: “The matter should be referred to the two Governments for consideration of whether any category of citizen born in the Republic of Ireland after 1949 might be issued with a British passport.” Is that OK? Mr Ferguson: No, I am not happy with that. The confusion over this has occurred because two separate issues have been collapsed into the agreed proposal. I will not agree to that. Lord Morrow: For what reason? Mr Ferguson: For the fundamental reason that the Twenty-six Counties is a sovereign state in its own right; it is quite different from the distortion of a state in which we live. There are issues around sovereignty, so I do not support the proposal. The confusion arises because paragraph 48 of the draft report suggests that Sinn Féin agreed the proposal, when it did not. 10.30 am Mr Poots: Sinn Féin agreed to the proposal, and that is recorded in the Hansard report — it cannot run away from that fact. The issue is about how the Committee portrays that in the minutes so that they give an accurate reflection of the decisions that took place last week. If Mr Ferguson has had the rug pulled from under his party because of its incompetence last week, that is his problem, and not the Committee’s. The Committee’s problem is to reflect what happened accurately in the minutes. Mr Ferguson: I want to say something about Edwin Poots’s rude remarks. Philip McGuigan’s comments were read out before Edwin came in. He might not have been so quick to jump in if he had been here earlier and heard what Philip McGuigan said, according to the Hansard report. Irrespective of that, no one is saying that any of us, at any time, cannot disagree, or go out for 10 minutes to have a rethink about what has been said here — just as we will do over press releases. I am not happy with this, and I would like to take it away and rethink it, primarily because of the way that the matter has been reported in paragraph 48 of the Committee’s draft report. That is not unreasonable. Edwin can interpret it as he wishes; however, he might want to come early to the meetings. Mrs Long: Alex’s intervention was quite useful. Sinn Féin did, on a number of occasions, say that it was not entirely happy with the proposal, but was content to enter into discussion about it. Those discussions would have given Sinn Féin the opportunity to make its points. What was agreed last week should be in the Hansard report, and it should simply be a matter of reflecting that on paper. The Committee should not be reopening the debate about the ins and outs of the matter — that is for another day. Lord Morrow: What does the Hansard report state? After all, that is why Hansard staff were brought in. Mr Nesbitt: I was not at the Committee last week so I have only the benefit of listening to this discussion. There are two clear points. First, Sinn Féin’s position is that it does not support some citizens of the Republic being granted UK citizenship, or passports. Secondly, the issue of whether the two Governments do that is to be referred to the Governments. The latter, from what the Committee Clerk read out, was agreed by consensus and the former was not. I can see the dilemma: the minutes say that Nelson McCausland proposed something, and they then say that there was consensus and that the proposal was agreed. That brings the two matters together. I understand from what was read out that it was agreed that the proposal would go to the two Governments. Sinn Féin cannot block that. That is what the Hansard report says — and I understand that that is all that the SDLP has asked. The principle is very clear; it is simply a matter of semantics. Mr Ford: I accept that Sinn Féin may wish to revisit this point as regards the Committee’s report. Like Dermot Nesbitt, I was not at last week’s meeting. However, when I heard the extract from the Hansard report read out, it was clear that Alex Attwood’s amendment to the minutes reflected what happened. There was not consensus on Nelson McCausland’s substantive proposal, but there was consensus that the issue should be referred to the Governments. I do not see how the Committee can do anything other than approve minutes that say that something was recorded in the Hansard report. If the issue is to be revisited later in the meeting, that is an entirely different issue. Lord Morrow: That was the compromise. Mr Nesbitt: It is very clear, Mr Chairman. It states: “Sinn Féin is content for the two Governments to have consultations”. — [Official Report, Bound Volume 20, col 1, p CPG270]. That is unambiguous — it is all in the SDLP’s proposal. Ms Ruane: Sinn Féin is concerned about the confusion surrounding this issue. As Michael said, there are inaccuracies in the Committee’s draft report, and we cannot agree the minutes or the draft report. There was confusion about the way proposals were taken. The Committee operates on consensus, and Sinn Féin is concerned about the way the whole issue was dealt with. Mr Attwood: I agree with Caitríona Ruane that the conclusions do not reflect what was agreed in the Hansard report, and the minutes do not reflect what was agreed in the Hansard report. In those circumstances, the Committee should go back to the source document, which is the Hansard report. Hansard is a substantially verbatim record of what was agreed. What appears in Hansard is what was agreed. I understand why members are sensitive about the wording in paragraph 48. I would not be talking about the way in which the minutes have been drafted if the SDLP did not also have sensitivities about the draft minutes. To rectify this, we should agree that paragraph 48 of the minutes be amended to say that, following a discussion on the availability of British passports to citizens of the Irish Republic who were born after 1949, it was agreed to refer the matter to the two Governments for further consideration. I do not think that that wording prejudices any party’s views, and it most accurately reflects what was agreed. It may be helpful were I to give that wording to the Committee Clerk. Mr Ford: I supported Alex’s wording when I first heard it. However, an alternative, which might be more helpful to Sinn Féin, given that other proposals that fell were recorded, would be to say that Nelson McCausland proposed that British passports should be made available to citizens born in the Republic of Ireland after 1949. There was not consensus and the proposal fell. He then proposed that the matter be referred to the two Governments for consideration. There was consensus on that proposal. That seems to me to be almost exactly what was read from Hansard. My suggested wording is not quite what Alex said, because my suggestion records Sinn Féin’s objection and its subsequent agreement to the slightly lesser proposal. Mr Nesbitt: David gives substance to the two elements, and I support his suggested wording. I cannot see how Sinn Féin members can be confused. I make this comment tongue in cheek: I remember Mr O’Dowd said a few weeks ago that the Sinn Fein’s equality gurus were on holiday. Perhaps its equality gurus have returned and are saying: “Here is a little missive from Sinn Féin on what they agreed to last week.” The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Let us not get into semantics. Have we agreement on either Alex’s or David’s suggested wording? Mr Attwood: Is Sinn Féin content that my wording accurately reflects what was said and is not prejudicial to its views or those of any other party? That is the issue. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are you content with David’s wording? Mr Attwood: Yes. His suggested wording and mine are essentially the same. Mr Ford: They are essentially the same. I was trying to help Sinn Féin by spelling out in more detail where consensus lay and where it did not lie. Mr Attwood: David’s suggested wording is probably better. Mr Nesbitt: David’s suggested wording decouples the two proposals that were made. Ms Ruane: We are concerned, because we do not accept that there was consensus. The way in which the proposals were put caused confusion. Lord Morrow: Which are you? Are you concerned or confused? Or is it a combination of the two? Ms Ruane: We are concerned. There has been confusion written into it in the way in which the proposals have been minuted and — [Interruption.] May I finish? Mr Nesbitt: Where is the confusion? Ms Ruane: Three people have interrupted me. Mr Ferguson: Hansard seems to be inaccurate. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): One member is to speak at a time, please. Otherwise, we will get nowhere in this meeting. Lord Morrow: You are annoying the Chairman now. Ms Ruane: Sorry, Chairperson. I clearly said that there is confusion over the proposals, the way in which the proposals were put, and in the reporting of what was said. In the light of that, we cannot accept that the draft minutes are an accurate reflection. Lord Morrow: How do you know that? Ms Ruane: I know from reading the draft minutes and the draft report. My party — [Interruption.] Is this an interrogation? Lord Morrow: I am merely asking questions. Mr Ferguson: There is clearly ambiguity in paragraph 48. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I was half joking when I ordered tea, but I think that we need it. Mr McNarry: I have not spoken, but I have sat here patiently for too long. We are discussing an item in the draft minutes. It is either accurate or it is not. It has been established that what is recorded in the draft minutes is not accurate. The Chairman should call for an amendment to paragraph 48 to be proposed. Two have been suggested. We should decide which reflects Hansard. Today’s Hansard will show that there is now no consensus. If Sinn Féin dislikes the proposal, the Committee will deal with it when it arises in the report, and we can make changes to it then. Lord Morrow: In the plenary, Sinn Féin will get plenty of time — Mr Ferguson: The DUP must be signing up to restoration then. Mrs Long: Caitríona has said that there is confusion and concern. The confusion is spreading. I am unclear as to whether there is consensus on either of the proposed amendments. That is the crux of this debate. There is confusion and concern about the minutes. Does Mr Ford’s proposal clarify or allay those concerns? That is the only thing that matters at this stage; simply restating concerns does not move us forward. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I asked whether that was the case, and it was not. That is how we have arrived back at this situation. Alex’s proposal was worded differently. Is there agreement on that? Mr Nesbitt: I support David Ford’s proposal. Mr Ford: I was happy with Alex’s proposal. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Dermot, you may support that proposal, but I asked Alex a question. Lord Morrow: Behave yourself, Dermot. Mr Ford: I was quite happy with Alex’s proposal. I merely sought to expand it in an attempt to be helpful to Sinn Féin. I am content to agree to Alex’s proposal, if Sinn Féin is content to do so. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Perhaps if Alex rereads his proposal, members will listen, and we can see if there is consensus. Mr Attwood: Following the discussion on the availability of British passports to citizens of the Irish Republic born after 1949, it was agreed to refer the matter to the two Governments for further consideration. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Have we agreement on that? Members indicated dissent. Mrs Long: To resolve this matter, can we simply insert the relevant section from the Hansard report? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): That is all we can do. However, David’s proposal was a reflection of what was recorded in the Hansard report. Mr Ford: I attempted to insert in the minutes both the proposal that fell and the proposal on which there was consensus. In effect, that is what Hansard records. Mr Attwood: Perhaps David will withdraw his proposal and agree to Naomi’s proposal to insert the relevant paragraphs from the Hansard report. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are we agreed? Mr Poots: It will become evident that the only confusion is among the ranks of Sinn Féin. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do members want a copy of the Hansard report? We can adjourn for five minutes to arrange that. Mr Ford: We have accepted the accuracy of it. Mrs Long: There is no point in looking at the Hansard report to decide whether it is accurate. It is accurate. We cannot dispute Hansard. If members wanted to do that, they would have done so before today. Lord Morrow: If we have copies, we will know what the Hansard report says. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): At least we would know to what we are agreeing. Mrs Long: It is immaterial. Mr Poots: Referring to the Hansard report will make it worse for Sinn Féin. Mr McNarry: This is the final report of Hansard and not the draft, is it not? The Committee Clerk: It is the draft. Mr McNarry: Have all members approved the draft Hansard report, according to normal procedures, and said either that they have no problem with it or that they do have a problem? Lord Morrow: Does that include Mr Ferguson? Mr Poots: It will be explicit from the Hansard report what we agreed. Mr McNarry: Technically, that is what should be done. Mr Ferguson: Technically, we usually do that at the beginning of every meeting. That is why we are talking about it now. Mrs Long: The only changes that members can make to Hansard are minor alterations to grammar. The context and detail cannot be changed, whether in draft form or not. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): It would be handy if there were less cross debate, so that we can listen to the member who is talking. Mrs Long: The only changes that members can make to the draft and final versions of a Hansard report are minor grammatical amendments in order to assist the flow. Members cannot change what was agreed or not agreed. Whether in draft or final version, the Hansard report reflects what happened. Mr Poots: Correct. Lord Morrow: That is true. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Can we go back for one moment? Mr Nesbitt: I support what Naomi said. The Hansard report shows that the Chairman asked if there was consensus that the two Governments should be asked to consider the issue, to which members indicated assent. That will be clear from the tape. There can be no ambiguity, unless the tape shows something different. Mr Ford: I am happy to follow Alex’s suggestion that I withdraw my proposal in favour of Naomi’s. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The Clerks must know the exact wording to ensure future accuracy. Mrs Long: My proposal is simply to delete the paragraph that paraphrases the Hansard report and to replace it with the relevant paragraphs from the actual report, wherein the proposal is made and consensus sought and reached. The Committee Clerk: Our difficulty is that we reflected what we thought was agreed in the body of the report. If we are not clear on what was agreed, there is a difficulty with the report. That is why we are trying to clarify that proposals were agreed last week. Mr Attwood: On this occasion, the Hansard report is explicit. It records that the Chairman asked if there was consensus, that the matter would be referred to the Governments and that no one dissented. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We could copy the two proposals directly from the Hansard report and insert them into the minutes. Mr Attwood: Yes. Mr Ferguson: I suggest that the Committee be suspended for five minutes so that members can read the Hansard report and consider Alex’s proposal. Lord Morrow: We can take the Hansard report wherever we like; we cannot change it. Mr Ferguson: My suggestion is that we take a five-minute adjournment. Does Maurice have a problem with that? 10.45 am Lord Morrow: I have no difficulty with that; the protocol has been that if an adjournment is asked for, it has been granted. Sometimes it is useful to state the reason. The DUP is not objecting to an adjournment. Mr Ferguson: Well, I am asking for one. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Let us take five minutes and come back to the matter then. The Committee was suspended at 10.45 am. On resuming — 10.59 am The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do any members who have not attended before — Mr Ennis; Ms Ruane; there might be others — have any interests to declare? Mr Ennis: I have no interests to declare. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): You are very welcome to the meeting. Can we agree the minutes? Mr Ferguson: No. Sinn Féin is not going to agree, primarily because Philip McGuigan’s comments, as recorded in the Hansard report, clearly reflect our objection on the passport issue. That being the case, why would we then feel that it would be OK for the two Governments to discuss something that we object to? 11.00 am Mr Nesbitt: That is your logic. Mr Ferguson: It is fairly clear to me. Mrs Long: Previously, when there has been no consensus on the substantive issue, we agreed that it could become part of the talks, or be referred to the two Governments for further consideration. That has happened on a number of occasions. I cannot cite them all now, but they are in the Hansard report. It does not follow that if you disagree with the proposition you must automatically disagree with other people having further discussions on it. Take the DUP’s paper on parades, for example. We did not agree with the entirety of the paper but were happy to bring it back for further consideration. There was consensus that it should return to the Committee for further consideration. There have been instances where people clearly do not agree with the substantive point but do agree that there should be further discussion, either with the Governments or within the Committee. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I do not know if we are going to get anywhere in this debate. I will ask the Committee Clerk to clarify the minutes, and we will either agree or disagree at that point. The Committee Clerk: Nelson McCausland proposed that British passports should be made available to citizens born in the Republic of Ireland after 1949. There was not consensus, and the proposal fell. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Is everyone happy enough with that? What is the next part? The Committee Clerk: He proposed that the matter be referred to the two Governments for consideration. There was consensus, and the proposal was agreed. Mr Ferguson: It was not agreed. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): As regards the Hansard — The Committee Clerk: That is what the Hansard report says. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We do not have agreement on it. Mr Nesbitt: Where does that leave us? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): It leaves us with minutes that are not agreed. The Committee Clerk: We have agreed that the proposal that British passports be made available did not have consensus. If the second part has not been agreed then it is not agreed, so it does not appear in the minutes. Mr Poots: We are agreed that we put those particular portions of Hansard in the minutes, are we not? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): That is why I have asked the Committee Clerk to reword that. Mr McNarry: This is a very dangerous precedent. Mr Nesbitt: Very dangerous. Mr McNarry: I suggest that you should take advice on this, Chairman. The exercise that we engaged in this morning was just to agree the minutes — a relatively simple thing. Here we are at 11.05 am and we have not agreed them. We cannot just say that the minutes are not agreed. Unless you can give a direction now, Chairman, I respectfully suggest that you take advice. This will set a precedent for every issue. Any party could decide for political reasons — which I suspect is the case here — to change its mind at the next meeting and attempt to alter the minutes. If we cannot accept this, we cannot accept the whole minute. Mr Poots: Chairman — The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Naomi was first. Mrs Long: I am very concerned about this. This is not a matter of something being implied; it is explicit. The Hansard report says that members indicated assent. Philip McGuigan said: “I made my comments based on the proposal before me. Sinn Féin is content for the two Governments to have consultations, but it is not a major impediment to the restoration of the Executive.” — [Official Report, Bound Volume 20, col 1, p CPG270]. If Sinn Féin is saying now that it disagrees with Philip McGuigan, then that is an entirely different matter. Sinn Féin cannot dispute the accuracy of what is recorded. Mr Ferguson: My point is that paragraph 48 of the proposed draft report implies that Philip McGuigan also supported the notion of the passports. The confusion arises out of how that is interpreted. That is why we have a difficulty with it. Mrs Long: We are only dealing with the minute. Mr Ferguson: The logical conclusion of the minute is that we would support the notion of passports for — The Chairman (Mr Molloy): All we are dealing with at this stage is the accuracy of the minute. Mr Nesbitt: Sinn Féin cannot get away with that. We are not confused about what Sinn Féin is saying we are confused about. We have spent an hour and five minutes trying to decouple two dimensions: one, Sinn Féin does not agree with Irish citizens getting British passports; and, two, it did permit that to be suggested for consideration by the two Governments. There is no confusion; this point does need to be clarified. It was suggested that we would be here for some time today. This quite simple matter should be clarified as a matter of priority and, if possible, before the meeting completes its business today. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The minute is not agreed, so we will check the position on it. We also have a previous minute that was not agreed, and we need to look at it. Lord Morrow: Therefore we are returning to it. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We will return to it afterwards. Mr Ford: At that point we did not have the benefit of Hansard. The Committee’s report on this strand will include a full Hansard of last week’s discussion, and so what was agreed will be absolutely clear. I said earlier, about a hundred years ago — well perhaps 45 minutes ago — that it was entirely open to Sinn Féin, when making recommendations in a report, to change its position. However, it simply cannot say that it did not say last week what it clearly did say. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I do not think that we can get any further on this, so let us move on. Mrs Long: It is difficult to see how we can make progress if people are in denial about what they said and if they are prepared to sit with the Hansard report — which is clearly an accurate reflection of what was said — in front of them yet say the opposite of what it contains. That places the whole Committee in a very precarious position. The lack of agreement on the minutes was the reason for bringing Hansard into proceedings of the Committee in the first place. That was done so that we would not get into these wrangles, and everyone else has accepted the accuracy of the Hansard report and the minutes ever since. Now, at the end of a lengthy process, we have people disputing the accuracy — not the content, which is for discussion under the report — but the accuracy of the record, and that is a substantive issue that we need to address. How we move on from this is not clear to me. Mr Nesbitt: Mr Ford said a moment ago that Sinn Féin could change its position when we deal with the report; however, I am not sure whether that can happen. The report is meant to be a record of the deliberations of this Committee. Mr Ford: During discussion, any party is surely at liberty to change its position and to request that an amendment be made. The record of what happened last week is one thing; but surely any party is at liberty to say that it has changed its mind. My point is that no party is at liberty to say that it did not say something that it did say. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I suggest that we reflect the minute as the Clerk read it out, and I rule that it is an accurate record of last week’s meeting. Lord Morrow: It is an accurate record; that is what was agreed. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The minute is accurate. Mr Nesbitt: I did not say that people or parties could not change their positions; of course they can. However, does the substantive report that we put to the Assembly reflect what was agreed here? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We have decided that it is an accurate minute, with the amendment that we are using Hansard as an accurate account. Mrs Long: We agree that without question. We need to address the issue that Mr Nesbitt raised: the status of the draft report. Parties could challenge the way in which paragraph 48 is worded; but that is a completely different issue. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We are coming to that. Mrs Long: If we muddle the two, it creates more difficulty. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We are not dealing with the report at this stage; we are dealing with the minutes. We will come to the report. There may be variations, as different people have different ideas. Mr Ferguson: We have put on record that we are not happy with the minutes. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Yes. Mr Nesbitt: May I deal briefly with a matter that arises from the minutes, now that they are agreed? Monica McWilliams’s letter was considered at the end of the meeting, and I was not present for that. A letter from the Human Rights Consortium was considered at the beginning of our previous meeting, but that is just a matter of procedure. My question is this: what happened at the meeting of 4 September as regards that item? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We were going to bring that up at the end of the meeting, but we can deal with it now. The Committee Clerk: The matter was deferred at the meeting on Monday. The DUP came back with its position. It was agreed that the Committee would not accept the proposal made by Prof McWilliams in its current form, and members requested that I ask her whether she could arrange either a shorter seminar or alternative dates. Prof McWilliams phoned me with an alternative date. She is to confirm that in writing but has yet to do so. Therefore I have nothing to table today. Mr Nesbitt: Thank you. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): It will be a shorter seminar. There do not appear to be any other matters arising from the minutes. The next item of business is the draft report. As is customary, our discussion of the draft report will take place in closed session. Are members content that we continue with that practice? It means that today’s Hansard report will not include details of the discussion. Mr Poots: Will the session be taped for accuracy purposes? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Yes. The session will be taped to help staff when drafting the Committee’s report, but the discussion will not be included in the Hansard report. As was agreed for other meetings, even though the session is closed to all other parties, the research staff will remain. The Committee met in private session from 11.11 am to 4.13 pm. Adjourned at 4.13 pm. |