COMMITTEE ON THE Wednesday 13 September 2006 Members in attendance for all or part of proceedings: The Committee met at 10.07 am. (The Chairman (Mr Wells) in the Chair.) The Chairman (Mr Wells): Ladies and gentlemen, this meeting will finish at 12.30 pm. Members will be sad to hear that lunch will not be provided, because the Committee on the Preparation for Government (PFG) dealing with institutional issues is to meet at 2.00 pm. Some folk will be staying on for that, but, in most cases, parties will be represented by a completely new team. We shall try to conclude this meeting at 12.30 pm, allowing a break for an hour and a half before the second meeting. Once again, I remind members to turn off their mobile phones. I believe that all members who are present have previously attended the PFG Committee dealing with law-and-order issues, so I do not think that any fresh declarations of interest need to be made. Is that correct? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We now move on to the draft minutes of the meeting of 6 September. Following Friday’s events, I dare not ask whether members wish to suggest any corrections or additions to, or make any observations about, the draft minutes. This is normally routine, but last week it certainly was not. Are the draft minutes agreed? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The next item on the agenda is “Matters arising”. The important issue is next Monday’s meeting at 10.00 am with the Secretary of State, Mr Hain — if it is still Mr Hain. I hope that it is, for continuity purposes if nothing else. We need to devote some time to considering how we deal with the mechanics of what will be a very important meeting for this Committee. We have already decided by consensus that it will be a public meeting, but we must decide on the location, whether television cameras will be admitted, what questions will be asked, and the order in which those questions will be asked. We also need to agree a press notice to alert the media and the public that this important meeting is taking place — although I suspect that that fact is now well known. The Committee briefly discussed the options last week. We could use somewhere such as the Senate Chamber, where television cameras are already present. The meeting could be broadcast and the press could take excerpts from it. There is no difficulty in the press sitting in the Chamber for the meeting, and the public, researchers and others could do likewise. The downside is that, first, it is a big Chamber, and secondly, members will be sitting on Benches with nowhere to put their papers. I recall that some members of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development complained that that is a bit awkward. However, the papers for the meeting may not be too extensive. We can sit on the Benches and ask questions of Mr Hain. That would give us maximum exposure. At the previous meeting, some members suggested that there might be those among us who would play to the cameras — heaven forbid. I am sure that no one on this Committee would try to get a sound bite on the BBC news. Alternatively, we could use one of the Committee rooms, from which the media could be excluded completely or allowed in just for the set-up. The cameras would come in, we would welcome the Secretary of State and exchange a few pleasantries, and at that point we would exclude the cameras and get down to business. There could be a live feed — without cameras — to the media offices in the Building so that they could hear the discussions. I am totally opposed to letting the cameras stay in the room, because their floodlights would be very intrusive and would make the room unbearable. Then again, we could have no television broadcast at all. All manner of options are available, and I am entirely in the hands of members. Mr Paisley Jnr: I propose that we use the Senate Chamber. The Chairman (Mr Wells): What do folk feel? The default situation, if we do not have consensus, is that there will be no television broadcast. Mr Paisley has proposed using the Senate Chamber, with, presumably, the cameras present. Mr Paisley Jnr: They are already there. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We could use the Senate Chamber but not broadcast the proceedings. Mr Paisley Jnr: We should use the Senate Chamber. Perhaps you should consider the question of location in two parts. The Chairman (Mr Wells): How do members feel about using the Senate Chamber? Mr G Kelly: That is fine. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Kelly is happy with that. Mr Bradley, what do you think? Mr D Bradley: I am happy enough with that. Mr Ford: It is a very large room. I do not know whether members saw any of the coverage of the Public Accounts Committee when it used the Senate Chamber, but the gathering did not look businesslike; it looked like a few people sitting around balancing papers on their knees. Room 135 is slightly bigger than this room, and there would be plenty of room there, particularly if there were no table at the back, to put chairs out and allow people in. We would still have the option of the sound feed. There is no reason why the cameras should not film the Secretary of State coming in, doubtless to be greeted warmly by whoever is in the Chair. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It will be me. Mr Ford: Perhaps not that warmly, in that case. After a few handshakes the cameras leave, but the sound feed would allow journalists to either sit in or listen downstairs. Using the Senate Chamber would not make us appear as though we were conducting a businesslike meeting, whereas sitting around the table in this room or in room 135 would. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is worth saying that some of the press have approached me, as Chairman. They are extremely keen to televise the meeting but, of course, they would say that, would they not? Have the Ulster Unionists any thoughts on this? Mr Kennedy: We are still consulting on the matter. On balance, we feel that the Senate Chamber, although not ideal, at least provides the opportunity for blanket coverage of the session, which allows the media to get a better sense of proceedings. I am not suggesting that there be wall-to-wall coverage. Could desks be put along the front of the Senate Chamber for papers, or is that considered bad form? The Chairman (Mr Wells): The problem is that the microphones are on the ground. That is the other problem with the Senate Chamber; in order to pick up voices, there can be nothing between the person who is speaking and the microphone. Mr Paisley Jnr: Those of us who have used the Senate Chamber for Committee meetings have worked out how to overcome that problem. Members can sit with their papers on their laps. We will not have great volumes of papers. Most of us know what we will ask the Secretary of State, and most of us are capable of articulating our positions without the use of a desk. I appreciate that it is an inconvenience — well spotted, Danny — but we can get over it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): If it is any consolation, the papers for that meeting are not extensive. Also, we will have a fair idea what questions we will be asking, as those will be agreed today. Therefore, there should not be too many surprises or much frantic hunting for material for a question. David, do you consider this to be a crucial issue? Mr Paisley Jnr: As an impediment to Government? Mr Kennedy: Is it a deal-breaker? 10.15 am The Chairman (Mr Wells): We need consensus, so how strongly do you feel about this, David? Mr Cobain: Do you want to phone a friend — that is, if you can get one? Mr Ford: Thank you, Fred. The fact that the other four parties all agree does not necessarily mean that I think that they have got it right — a scenario that will doubtless recur several times in the autumn. I will not make a big song and dance about it if everyone else is in agreement. However, even though I am willing to go along with the proposal, I remain to be convinced by it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): May I take it that there is consensus that the meeting will take place in the Senate Chamber? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Presumably, the follow-on from that is that the meeting will be televised: Assembly cameras will film the event and the press can take whatever they want from the proceedings. Mr Paisley Jnr: There is another option. There could be an opportunity for members to raise certain issues in camera with the Secretary of State and perhaps extract more information from him in that type of session — or not. There could then be a public session to discuss issues that the Secretary of State has already flagged up, on which he will answer questions and on which he will not change his position anyway. I am simply putting forward that option for discussion; I am happy for the entire event to be televised. Mr McFarland: When this issue was raised at our last meeting, one school of thought was that we might get more out of the Secretary of State from a private meeting. The general consensus was that we would not. Therefore, the logic was to go for the full monty, as it were, and televise the meeting. I suspect that the Secretary of State will not say anything of any import, but having the cameras there will give members a chance to have their ta-da moment. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There will be a dress code, I assure you. Mr Cobain: Do not tell Sammy Wilson. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We are not that desperate. There will be a live audio feed to Hansard, so there will not be much privacy, regardless of whether the meeting is televised. Mr McFarland: There is a difference between journalists mentioning the meeting as an item on a 5.00 pm radio show and having really good pictures of Committee members jumping up and down saying that they could tell the Secretary of State this or that, and so forth, being broadcast on the television news. The Chairman (Mr Wells): When we consider the issues for discussion, we could decide, as Ian suggested, that some of the meeting be held in camera. Presumably, that is simply a matter of turning off the camera, over which we have control. Mr McFarland: The Committee will invite members of the public to the meeting. If we are to hold part of the meeting in camera, we will need to do that at the beginning and then invite the public in. We cannot invite the public into the meeting, ask them to leave for a certain period halfway through and then ask them to come back. Mr Ford: The entire premise of the notion of a session in camera at any level is nonsense. I cannot believe that the Secretary of State would say anything more to one person or party than he would consider saying in public anyway. Mr G Kelly: I agree. We had this discussion previously and agreed that the meeting should be open, so let us keep it open. It will be a story in itself if the meeting is held in camera; in fact, it will be the story. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There seems to be reasonable consensus that the cameras remain on throughout. For members’ information, the meeting will start at 9.45 am. The first period will be a private session, after which Madam Speaker will bring the Secretary of State to the door of the Senate Chamber and the meeting will go public when he enters the Chamber. As no one seems greatly exercised, that is how it will be. That is what the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development did when I was a member. I suggest that members bring clipboards with them if they want to lean on something as they frantically write notes as the Secretary of State is speaking. There is a draft press notice at tab 3 of the members’ pack. The Committee Clerk: There is a revised draft. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Has that been handed out? Mr Paisley Jnr: Are we still on tab 2 of the members’ pack? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes; we will come back to that. We have not finished discussing the meeting with the Secretary of State. However, it may be useful to consider what the Committee is saying about it in the press release before moving on to the issues for discussion at that meeting. Mr Paisley Jnr: With that in mind, the press release, as currently constituted, flags up three narrow issues. I have another six issues that I want to raise with the Secretary of State. We should deal with the facts: there will be a meeting with the Secretary of State on 18 September; it will be in the Senate Chamber; and it will be public. The press release can say that a number of issues have been the subject of discussion and could be perceived as impediments to Government, or whatever, but it is foolish to start listing the issues specifically. I would want at least another six issues on the list. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Committee could not say that Monday’s meeting will be public until it is so agreed. Mr Paisley Jnr: I know that, but we are where we are now. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We would not have much of a press release if those issues were dropped. Mr Paisley Jnr: It would be factual. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is very bland. Mr Paisley Jnr: Members are worried about the story, but the story comes after the meeting. It will be public. Mr McFarland: Did the Secretary of State not ask the Committee what the topics would be? We discussed the matter and said that we would let him know in advance. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will do that. Mr McFarland: Have we not done that already? The Chairman (Mr Wells): No, we are coming back to that. Mr McFarland: So we can still add other topics? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes, we can. We have two options: we either drop all references to what we will discuss and have a straightforward press release, or we list everything. How do members feel about that? Mr McFarland: I would prefer a general press release stating that we are meeting with the Secretary of State to question him on issues involving policing and the institutions. We can finalise the list and give the tenor later; it will be more of a surprise to people. Mr G Kelly: There is a difficulty with issuing a list of topics. We have not dealt with the list; more may be added to it. Mr Paisley has already said that he wants to add to it. A general press release would be best. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are members happy? There is sufficient interest in the meeting that the press will be present whether or not a press release is issued. A press release would remind them to put it in their diaries. Mr Cobain: I have a point of clarification. The Secretary of State will want to know the issues to be discussed, so I assume that we will be sending the topics for discussion to him, but not to the press. Is that right? Are we going to agree among ourselves? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes, that is the next subject. The actual press release is all of four lines long. Mr Ford: It could be lengthened by pointing out that the meeting is in public, in the Senate Chamber at 10.00 am; that would add another half line. Mr Kennedy: It makes it more exciting, does it not? On a slow news day it is bound to work. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am sure that it will be the hottest ticket in town. If it were today, it would be a headline. Mr McFarland: Is the meeting with the Secretary of State just with the Committee dealing with law-and-order issues? I thought that, for example, on the institutions side — The Committee Clerk: It will be this strand. Mr McFarland: At the beginning, when we were discussing whether we would invite evidence, we decided that we would need to speak to the Secretary of State towards the end of the Committee’s work, so that we could pick up all the loose strands from our discussions. Are there loose strands from the discussions on institutions and human rights? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. We have two problems. First, the other strands of the PFG Committee have not raised those issues to be tabled with Mr Hain on Monday; secondly, he has not been told to expect them. The genesis of this came from Arlene Foster — who, by the way, has still to give birth. The baby is still imminent. Arlene raised the issue of the Glenties speech in July and required clarification on that, so it was very much in this format of the Committee. Mr McFarland: I understand that this format of the Committee was taking the lead on that. However, we do not want to have to call the Secretary of State back to meet the other two formats. Is there anything else that we should ask him? We should clear up all the issues that we are uncertain about when he is here. Are we doing a package or not? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr McFarland, you are one of the best attenders of the Committee — in all its strands — and you realise that we are well down the route to agreeing the report on all three strands. The only issue that has arisen is the ministerial code. However, the Secretary of State has not been given any inkling that that is expected. In any case, I suspect that we will be able to fill our time. Mr McFarland: I was just wondering whether there are any outstanding matters that we might want the Secretary of State to come back on later. If we are going to do this, let us do it now. If there is nothing outstanding, that is fine. The Chairman (Mr Wells): If there is anything more in this area to discuss, members will have the opportunity — for a few minutes — to add to the list, which will go to the Secretary of State. Mr D Bradley: On the first point on the list that has already been provided, we would like to ask — The Chairman (Mr Wells): You are moving on to the items for discussion with the Secretary of State. Mr D Bradley: Yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Could we agree the press release first? Are members content with the press release? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am interested in hearing the views of all parties on the issues that should be flagged to the Secretary of State. Mr D Bradley: The issues that the SDLP would like to add to the list include: asking why the PSNI should retain primacy for national security; what accountability mechanisms exist for MI5; and when, and what, will be shared in respect of the new arrangements regarding MI5. The SDLP is happy with the third and fourth items on the list, but we would like to add restorative justice as a fifth. We wish to discuss the flaws in the protocols and our concerns about their impact on the integrity of policing. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do you have three items to add, Mr Bradley? Mr D Bradley: Yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Those items are entirely in order, as the SDLP and others flagged them during previous discussions. There is no difficulty with the relevancy of those points. Do other parties wish to raise anything? We will go through all the points and distil them into a manageable form. Mr Paisley Jnr: I am sure that members will wish to raise issues within the four existing areas. The DUP wants to discuss paramilitary and political links to serious and organised crime, but that is missing from the list. We want to discuss fifty-fifty recruitment, which has been on the agenda previously. We also wish to raise the appointment next year of the new Police Ombudsman. The SDLP has mentioned community restorative justice (CRJ); I would like that to be raised also. Mr S Wilson: Will the SDLP clarify a point? There seems to be a contradiction between intelligence remaining with the PSNI and MI5 accountability. Which is it to be? If intelligence is to remain with the police, why would we need to be concerned with MI5 accountability if that body will not be operating? I am not sure why both items are on the agenda; they seem to be contradictory. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Ford, does your question relate to this issue? Mr Ford: Yes. Surely the way in which it has been spelled out in the first bullet point in the ‘List of Matters for Meeting the Secretary of State’ does not try to answer the question, but indicates that we wish to raise it. I fear that Sammy will reopen the debate on that point. Should we agree the questions in a reasonably neutral way, parties will obviously put their spin on them. We cannot agree the list of questions for the Secretary of State in a partisan way. Mr Paisley Jnr: Before we get into a wider discussion, the DUP would like one further item, sentencing policy, to be added to the list. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Kelly has been waiting for quite a while to speak. Mr G Kelly: Sinn Féin has made it clear that it wants to discuss the accountability mechanisms for MI5 and the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA). The first item on the list mentions demarcation. We have been through this list three or four times already. Like Ian Paisley Jnr, I can add to that list, but does there not have to be consensus on what is being put forward? The Chairman (Mr Wells): If it were important to a party that a question be asked, I would rule that we do not have to force that party to seek consensus. That is how it has been dealt with as far as raising issues at the Committee has been concerned. To require consensus would be totally unfair. Mr McFarland: Parties should show a degree of sense. We do not want to lose the opportunity of eliciting information that would be useful to the Committee. Each party could end up producing a list of 50 items that it wants to raise; we could end up gumming it and not getting an answer to anything. That is the danger of everyone having free rein. I am happy for parties to raise issues to which they have not yet had answers. However, if we start producing a wish list of all our problems, we will not have the time to get anything done. 10.30 am Mr Paisley Jnr: Mr McFarland makes a valid point, but it is important that the Secretary of State gets a broad brush on the headline areas that he will be asked about. Under the current four topics, none of the areas that I have identified could have been raised. All the parties will have discretion on whether we ask about an issue and the nature of the questions. However, at least the areas will have been flagged up beforehand, and the Secretary of State will know what to expect. The Chairman (Mr Wells): So far, parties have been fairly responsible and have listed three or four major issues. If that is the trend, we should have no problem with distilling the issues into four or five headings and getting questions on them. Mrs Long: The additions by the SDLP and DUP, particularly on CRJ and fifty-fifty recruitment, encompass some of the issues that the Alliance Party hoped to add to the list. Our concern is that CRJ issues are not unduly delayed, as there are organisations that, although they are willing to live up to them, do not meet the kind of protocols that we regard as necessary for CRJ to operate. There is concern in the community that CRJ issues are being unduly delayed, when the Government ought to be moving ahead. If the topics are broad, it will be possible for all parties to explore the issues. Mr G Kelly: We could be here all day. This is an attempt, although perhaps not the right kind of attempt, to bring all the issues under four headings. The question is: what is the format or running order of the day? If parties knew that, they would know whether they could raise the six or seven issues that the DUP has raised or issues that come under sub-headings. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will be coming to that point, as it is extremely relevant. A party could place a topic under a heading but not get to ask a question about it. Once we get the list we will have to form headings from which to allocate questions to each party, and we must do that fairly. Mr Paisley Jnr: There is an alternative way of proceeding. As we know the precise amount of time that we will have with the Secretary of State, we could allocate a time section to each party, in which it could decide what it considers important to raise with him. There may be some overlap, but at least each party would be satisfied that it was raising issues that it considers to be impediments. Mr Cobain: Mr Chairman, you have been through several of these meetings, and you know that one question may stimulate other questions. If individual parties are left to run through a section, there will be a fragmented discussion. Parties will want to run through five or six headings in their allocated time. One party might want to talk about or clarify issues that were raised by the previous party. Instead of a seamless run through questions, the DUP might want to spend 15 or 20 minutes discussing CRJ, while Sinn Féin might want to do the same. That is not how to do it. We should have a general heading under which we ask the Secretary of State questions, and parties can then run through the particular issue that is raised. It is better to ask the questions in a seamless way rather than struggle through the parties. However, I defer to your greater experience in the matter, Mr Chairman. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I will go round the parties to gather their views on the issue, because it is important. Mr S Wilson: My only concern with dividing the questions among the parties is that, while Sinn Féin, or the DUP, say, is asking questions, the other parties will be disengaged. Such a system might take away from the spontaneity of a session, because members may want to follow on from a question that they may not have listed. Asking questions by topic rather than by party might be a better way of proceeding. Mr Ford: We agree with what Fred broadly outlined. “Topics” seems to be a much more sensible way of getting into the detail. Mr D Bradley: We would go with the thematic approach. Mr G Kelly: I do not have a difficulty with that — it is going to happen anyway — but each party needs a short slot in which to state its position. In the previous format each party had five minutes to make opening remarks, followed by discussion. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Our difficulty is that we have a maximum of 90 minutes. If each party takes five minutes that is 25 minutes gone immediately. Parties may even wander beyond the five minutes. There seems to be agreement that we should pursue themes and topics. I was going to suggest that each party should be allowed to ask five primary questions, with a few supplementary questions, and then the parties can decide to allocate, in order of their own preference, those topics they want to ask questions on. Therefore, if a party is not, for instance, primarily concerned about CRJ it could ask a question about MI5 or something like that. I do not want people saying at the end of the meeting that I did not give them enough time to ask questions. Mr McFarland: We have operated fairly well here. We made our list of topics and then addressed them. Logically, providing the parties are sensible, we will be questioning the Secretary of State on several issues, the first of which, presumably, will be national security. There will be other topics as we go round; and the answer, I suppose, is to attract the Chairman’s attention when one wishes to speak on particular issues. We can have a discussion on national security in the normal way. Do we want parties to do that in order? The difficulty is that if the issue was initially raised by the SDLP, for example, it would be silly if that party were placed fourth on the list. On the other hand we all have contributions to make. I do not know how we would arrive at a running order, but we should treat it as we would normally, in a sensible way, without grandstanding. I know that that is a forlorn hope. The Chairman (Mr Wells): So we have consensus that there will be no grandstanding on Monday? Mr Ford: I assumed, Mr Chairman, when we started this discussion that you were going to stick with precedent and Alliance was going to take the lead in every session. [Laughter.] However, to be slightly more serious — even Naomi was laughing at that one — there would be logic in having five sections and agreeing this morning that each party would take the lead on one. After that, it would be for other parties to catch your eye, depending on the priority they give to that particular section of the agenda. If you do not treat us fairly, Mr Chairman, you will presumably incur wrath around the room. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That had occurred to me. We seem to be going places. The difficulty will be in trying to get five themes that encapsulate all the additional points that members wish to raise. Are there any other issues? Mr G Kelly: There is one prevalent issue — Diplock courts. In particular, it has been suggested that the practice of defence counsel’s peremptory challenge should be abolished. That is an important issue. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Excuse my total ignorance, but what on earth is peremptory challenge? Mr G Kelly: Peremptory challenge means that the defence lawyer in a jury trial has an opportunity to peremptorily say that a juror can go. If the practice is removed, then they will want to introduce anonymity, which is also a dangerous precedent. It exists in Britain but there is no demand for it here. The intention is to introduce it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I notice that the Alliance Party seems to be happy that others raised the topics it intended to raise. Is that the situation, because I have nothing specifically down on my list against the Alliance Party. Is that correct? Mr Ford: That is correct. Mrs Long: It would fall under those broad headings. Our specific angle on items may be different to other parties. The broad areas are covered, so it would still be possible to ask our questions within the general thrust of the discussion. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is it the same for the UUPAG? Mr McFarland: Yes. We are more concerned about other topics; for example, we have grave concerns about Peter Hain’s speech at the MacGill summer school in Glenties, and my party originally raised it. Obviously we have views on the national security issue that differ from those of Sinn Féin and the SDLP. We will contribute on whatever topic we feel concerned about. CRJ is a big issue. I am not sure what the issue is about the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), but Sinn Féin raised it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We need to agree about five topics. I see Mr Bradley’s two issues – the primacy of the police service and accountability mechanisms for MI5 – coming under the “issues of national security” heading. They seem to sit comfortably there. Does the SDLP agree? Under what heading does CRJ belong? Mr Paisley Jnr: It does not belong under that heading. The Chairman (Mr Wells): No. We need a separate heading for that. Mr McFarland: RIPA probably sits under the “issues of national security” heading, because it is connected with the world of intelligence and surveillance. Mrs Long: The issue raised by the Alliance Party during the discussions, about potentially differential treatment of loyalist and republican paramilitarism, falls under that heading. I assume that we will be able to raise it again during that discussion. Division of responsibility for dealing with those is already an issue. It is something that we want to raise. Mr G Kelly: CRJ came in under the heading “residual issues of justice” and so too did the Diplock courts. It is intended to bring the Diplock courts to an end in those circumstances. Were the heading broader, it could probably encompass a few other issues. May I make a point that I meant to make earlier? You moved on slightly more quickly than I expected. There was substantial discussion of the relationships between the British Secretary of State, a possible Minister for Justice, the PSNI Chief Constable and the Policing Board. Other parties too may have been worried about the powers of the Policing Board under those circumstances. Questions must be asked about that. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Under which heading does that sit? Mr Paisley Jnr: I suggest that “national security and intelligence” is a single heading and that it includes topics like primacy of the police, accountability and RIPA. That should be a separate issue. A heading of “police and policing structures” would cover a multiplicity of areas including structural issues, accountability of police to Government, et cetera; fifty-fifty recruitment; the Ombudsman; perhaps even sentencing powers — well, no, not in policing. A third, and fairly obvious, heading is that which I put first: “paramilitary links and crime”. That sits on its own. A final area is that of “police/justice matters”, and under that could come CRJ and sentencing issues. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is helpful. Mr Paisley Jnr: The only issue left out of that scheme is Army powers post normalisation. That might fit under either the “police structures” heading, or under “national security”. It depends what side of the fence you are on. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The only difficulty with that is that I do not remember it being raised. Mr Paisley Jnr: It is on the list here. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. But it was not raised in the discussions that we have had. Mr S Wilson: Army powers were raised. In fact it is one of the issues that we have — The Chairman (Mr Wells): I must not have been chairing on that day. Mr McFarland: The issue of Peter Hain’s speech at the MacGill summer school in Glenties is about where policing is going, because in that speech there was the suggestion of a two-tier police system. Other issues, political links and CRJ, fit with together with that. The practical outworking of CRJ on the ground, and whether separate structures are needed, should come under the same heading as the MacGill speech. 10.45 am The Chairman (Mr Wells): That seems too neat. I am sure that there are members who feel that the topics they have raised do not automatically fall into one of those categories. It certainly seems to take us a long way towards getting a theme for each set of questions. Does anyone have any thoughts on that? I am going through the various topics: fifty-fifty recruitment; the Police Ombudsman; sentencing and Diplock courts. It seems to cover most issues. Mrs Long: Mr Chairman, would you run through the headings again? The Chairman (Mr Wells): “National security/Intelligence”; “Policing structures”, which includes fifty-fifty recruitment, the Ombudsman and the Glenties comments; “Crime/Paramilitarism”; “Justice issues”, which includes CRJ, sentencing and courts issues; and “Army powers” post normalisation. Does everyone feel that the subjects they wish to raise will be covered by those five headings, which will give a definite structure to our questioning? The one that looks thin is “Army powers” because there is just one subject under that heading, but I do not see that subject going anywhere else. What do members feel? It seems reasonably neat and clear. Is there consensus? Mr Ford: “Army powers” does seem to be very thin. I wonder if it might fit alongside the security issues. It also seems to me that the way in which we are describing the structural issues around policing involves two different issues: fifty-fifty recruitment and the Ombudsman; and the Glenties speech, which is to do with the political acceptance of policing. They are not really the same thing. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The reason I am so keen on having five topics is that we have five parties. We will then just have to agree who takes the lead on each one. I see “Army powers” as being thin, to put it mildly, and I wonder who would take the lead on that — the DUP presumably wants to take the lead on one of the other ones. The Committee Clerk: “Army powers” was an SDLP issue. The Chairman (Mr Wells): But the DUP wanted a separate heading. Mr Ford: That is my concern, Mr Chairman. Is policing being split into two different issues, one being the political link to the policing structures, and the other being the policing structures themselves? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Policing is such an important issue that it deserves more coverage. Mr Ford: I think it deserves more time than “Army powers”. Mr Paisley Jnr: May I build on that suggestion and say that we could split “Policing structures” into two areas: the politics of policing, and the structures of policing. We could deal with “Army powers” under the politics of policing and we could deal with the other issues under the structures of policing. Mr G Kelly: I could be wrong, but I presume that we will not have a situation in which the Secretary of State says that he is not taking a particular question. Who is going to chair the meeting? The Chairman (Mr Wells): I will be chairing it. Mr G Kelly: We need to know the procedures. We are really trying to do the thing here. I do not see circumstances in which somebody will stand up and say that we cannot ask a particular question to do with any of the subjects that have been brought up. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Secretary of State has indicated that if he gets prior notice of the topics he will try to answer everything he can. Mr G Kelly: So these are headings, and then there will be a sub-list that we will send to him. Is that right? The Chairman (Mr Wells): He will get the headings, which will outline the areas of questioning. We are not going to hand him the questions. That would make life too easy for him. He will know to be briefed on these five major subjects before he comes into the room. If we agree that, we must then decide who will ask what and who will deal with which issue. That will be our next difficulty. There is considerable merit in what David and Ian have said about subdividing the policing issue. It was a dominant issue throughout the Committee’s discussions. The issue of army powers could then be incorporated into the politics of policing issue. Are members content to split the issue in that way? Mr G Kelly: It depends on who is leading on what. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is the next difficulty: who will ask the questions? Do we have consensus on the five headings? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There are five parties and five sets of questions. The spokesperson for each party will lead on their choice of issue. Mr Paisley Jnr: If, for example, the Alliance Party chooses to lead on the national security issue, would other parties still have an opportunity to ask questions? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. Mr Paisley Jnr: It is not really a problem, is it? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Priority would obviously be given to the party that first raised the issue — it would have the first opportunity to ask questions. The problem is that parties have raised several different issues, some of which overlap. Sinn Féin raised the issue of responsibility for national security. The DUP raised the policing issue, or, at least, it raised its concerns about the Secretary of State’s speech in Glenties in July. Mrs Foster was greatly exercised by the Secretary of State’s comments. The SDLP is very exercised about both policing and national security. How do we decide who gets what? It is really only a matter of who gets to ask the first question. From a media perspective, the member who leads on an issue is more likely to receive media exposure than the member who asks the fifth question. That is perhaps why members are keen to lead on particular issues. Mr Paisley Jnr: It sounds like you are talking people out of volunteering to go second. The Chairman (Mr Wells): At the start of the meeting, we were assured that no one would use the occasion as a media opportunity; therefore the running order should not concern anyone. Mr Paisley Jnr: Therefore, we are agreed that Alan will go last? Mr G Kelly: The easiest approach to take would be the normal approach — the order should be based on the number of Assembly seats that each party holds. The Chairman (Mr Wells): In that case, the DUP would have first choice, followed by Sinn Féin, followed by the UUPAG — Mr Ford: Who? Mr Kennedy: I am not sure whether that term is — Mr G Kelly: Current? The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is no longer in existence. Mr Kennedy: You may want to consult the Speaker on that. Mr Ford: Chairman, I am happy enough to explore that approach, but I am not agreeing to it. The Alliance Party does not want to end up leading on an issue in which it has no interest, when it has already expressed significant interest in two or three issues. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Let us see where the suggested approach leads us. Mr Ford: I am prepared to see where it leads, but I am not yet prepared to agree to it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Working on the basis that the DUP would have first choice, is there a particular issue on which it would like to lead? Mr Paisley Jnr: The politics of policing. The Chairman (Mr Wells): What would Sinn Féin choose? Mr G Kelly: National security and intelligence. The Chairman (Mr Wells): What would be the Ulster Unionists’ choice? Mr McFarland: Can you remind us what the politics of policing issue was? The Chairman (Mr Wells): There was the structures of policing and — Mr G Kelly: Was it the politics of policing and the structures of policing? Mr McFarland: The DUP is leading on the Glenties issue. We will deal with the other policing issue, which is policing structures. The Chairman (Mr Wells): And the SDLP’s choice? Mr D Bradley: Could you list the issues that have already been selected, please? The Chairman (Mr Wells): National security and both policing issues have been picked. The crime and paramilitarism issue remains, as does the justice issue. Mr S Wilson: The justice issue really involves community restorative justice matters. Mr D Bradley: In that case, we shall choose justice. The Chairman (Mr Wells): By a process of elimination, that leaves the Alliance Party with crime and paramilitarism. How do you feel about that, David? Mr Ford: For the second time today, we will be gracious and go along with others. Mr McFarland: What does that issue include? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Crime prevention and paramilitarism relate to the paramilitary links with serious crime. The DUP raised the issue, and it has come up several times. Mr McFarland: I thought that that was included in one of the other areas. The Chairman (Mr Wells): No. It is separate from the others, and it is split in two. It is a fairly meaty topic, and it is by no means the dregs of the subjects for discussion. Mr Ford: The Alliance Party has spoken a lot about it, and the Ulster Unionists raised it originally. Mr Paisley Jnr: Is it the Ulster Unionist Party’s fault? That is unfair. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are all parties content with what they have? Has everyone got a topic to get their teeth into in their first question? Mr Kennedy: Do you intend to invite the Secretary of State to begin the meeting with an overview based on the indication that he has received and then continue with a more detailed conversation? The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Committee can ask the Secretary of State to do that, and the decision to do so may be made this morning. However, an opening statement from the Secretary of State will eat into the time allowed for questions. Mr Kennedy: If the Secretary of State is aware of the topics for discussion, it might be useful if he begins with a brief statement or overview relating to them, and it might lead to better questions. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Should we ask the Secretary of State to give a statement, and, if so, how much time should he be allocated? That is important. I will go round the table for each party’s response. Mr Kelly? Mr G Kelly: Mr Hain will do a lot of talking, and we may end up with a speech about the Deputy Prime Minister’s job. I do not know if the Secretary of State could cover all that Danny is suggesting in a brief introduction. He will give his views as time goes on. The meeting will last for only 90 minutes, and we have already ruled out an opening speech by the parties, so I do not see the purpose of a statement from the Secretary of State. Mr D Bradley: I would prefer that the time was devoted to questions. Mrs Long: It might be better if the Secretary of State did not make an opening speech, because, I suspect, that people would be drawn into questioning him on his remarks when we have an agenda that we want to explore with him. I would prefer that we ask our questions and direct his comments towards our agenda rather than the other way round. Mr McFarland: There is a danger that the Secretary of State will try to go into some of the topics and cover too much for a brief statement. The protocol would be to invite him to say a few words to start off the meeting. However, that would eat into the time, and, I suspect, that we will run out of time in any case as people try to mine down into these issues. Mr Paisley Jnr: We should afford him the usual pleasantries and words of welcome, but apart from that we should not give him a platform. The Chairman (Mr Wells): He might want to thank us for our hard work over the summer, but he can do that during the questioning. Mr Ford: Further to what Alan said, Maria Eagle’s presentation to the economic subgroup did not significantly cover anything that we had not already dealt with in evidence from others, but it ate at least 10 minutes into a relatively brief time. The question and answer was much more productive. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There seems to be consensus for a few pleasantries and straight into questions. That will make maximum use of our time. The meeting will last for 90 minutes, and there are five parties. Each party will therefore be allocated 18 minutes. It will be my job to try to ensure that each party roughly gets its fair share. Mr McFarland: That is a dangerous way to look at this. I know that people will keep going back to party policy and such like, but we have been operating successfully as a Committee. The Committee has a life of its own, and we have taken a life of our own here. It is the purpose of the Committee to get discussion on these matters, so it would be unfortunate if one party was tackling an issue — for instance, national security — and ended up spending 14 minutes of its allotted time on it because it was having a back and forward with the Secretary of State. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I would not allow a party to occupy the arena for such a long time. I would ask it to keep its questions short and snappy, and it would have the right to come back with a response. 11.00 am Mr McFarland: If a party is engaged in a debate that is producing a good deal of information and if it is not using the time to grandstand, it would be unfair to interrupt simply because it has gone two minutes over its allocated time. After all, the Committee’s intention is to dig out information on the issues. You should try to make it fair — I am not arguing about that. However, we should leave you to decide whether the allocated time is acceptable and whether members have had a fair crack of the whip. You do not want them to complain after the meeting that they had two minutes less than they were entitled to. The Chairman (Mr Wells): My worry is that we could run out of time when we get to the fifth topic and it is David or Naomi’s turn to speak. Mrs Long: That would not worry Alan, but it would worry us. Mr McFarland: We should leave it up to you, rather than simply saying that each party has been allocated 14 minutes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I would not allow any topic to be discussed for more than 20 minutes. Mr P Robinson: There may be another complication. The PFG Committee does not simply deal with policing and related issues; it deals with other matters such as human rights and institutional issues. In one of its other modes, the Committee may have a pressing issue that it wants to raise with the Secretary of State. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We had a brief discussion on that. The Secretary of State has been invited as a result of an intervention by Mrs Foster, following his Glenties speech. He has not been given any warning that anything other than policing and justice and law and order issues will be discussed. Mr P Robinson: You do not think that he would be capable of moving from one subject to another? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Aside from the ministerial code, we are unaware of any burning issues that have arisen at the other PFG Committee meetings and that we have had to refer to the Secretary of State. This strand of the PFG Committee is the only one that has requested a meeting with him, but heaven knows what else could crop up by Monday. Mr P Robinson: This afternoon, the PFG Committee dealing with institutional issues may have an issue that it would like to raise with him. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The problem is that that would unravel the structure that has been agreed for Monday. If we get through our questions on law and order and criminal justice, we may have time to slot in other issues at the end. I do not think that we can get an extension to the time. Mr P Robinson: Are we changing the arrangements for Monday? Normally, the PFG Committee deals with institutional issues on Mondays. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We had anticipated that there would be a plenary on Monday, but that is unlikely now. Mr Cobain: Some issues that were raised did not relate directly to policing and justice. We did not discuss them, because they were matters for other meetings of the PFG Committee. Those issues were passed either to the PFG Committee dealing with equality issues or to the PFG Committee dealing with institutional issues. Your point is quite right; we have dealt only with policing and justice in this Committee. The Chairman (Mr Wells): On Monday, I presume that parties will send their main players on policing and justice. Mr P Robinson: We do not know yet. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Those members would be best placed to ask searching questions on those issues. Mr G Kelly: I presume that parties will decide for themselves who should attend. It would be logical to send the members who sit on the PFG Committee dealing with policing and justice. However, parties will make up their own minds, because, in the end, there is only one Committee — the PFG Committee. I am a substitute on it. I will be there on Monday, but I expect Martin McGuinness to attend as well. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are there any burning issues from the other two strands of the PFG Committee that could be appended? Mr McFarland: I have attended all meetings of the PFG Committee and, usually, issues are identified that members feel should be referred to the Secretary of State. The PFG Committee dealing with institutional issues may wish to raise issues with him, following examination of the report. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will examine the report on institutional issues this afternoon. We could introduce as an agenda item whether members have any pressing issues that they want included on next Monday’s agenda. The only way to do that neatly is to have a session at the end of the meeting during which those matters can be raised. Mr McFarland: We would have to squish those matters together; some of them are not big topics. Having read the Secretary of State’s replies to our letters, my guess is that an extensive response will not be forthcoming on those issues. Most of the letters have been given stock replies. Ninety minutes is long enough for the Secretary of State to answer our questions. As he has said, he will not discuss matters, but will answer our questions and clarify certain issues, such as what he meant by his speech in Glenties. We may have to squish those matters together if there are other burning issues, but I do not have a problem with that. We are the Committee on the Preparation for Government — one Committee in different formats — and we must seek answers. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am aware of members’ skills, and I am sure that they could weave in questions on institutional issues. The only problem is that that would mess up our neat schedule. It would perhaps be better if the Committee dealing with institutional issues identified and discussed the burning issues that it wants to raise. The only way around that is to cut time off the five parties and add time for miscellaneous matters at the end. I do not envisage that any matters will arise from the report on equality issues. Mr P Robinson: With regard to the institutions, questions will arise about the extent to which the Secretary of State and the NIO, in the drafting of the Bill, have taken the Committee’s work into account. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is an important issue. Are members content that that question be raised? Mr Ford: I am sure that it will not take the Secretary of State more than 30 seconds to answer that question. Mr P Robinson: Or, rather, not answer the question. Mr Ford: I stand corrected. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will leave that matter for the moment. I presume that there will be an overlap between this morning’s and this afternoon’s discussions. Mr P Robinson: One way to deal with that is to ask the Secretary of State to address that issue in his opening remarks, so that our schedule would not be disturbed. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We are just about to inform him that he will not be given an opportunity to make opening remarks. Mr P Robinson: That is my point. If he is asked to comment on that issue, he may want to do so in his opening remarks. He will make opening remarks anyway, whether in response to the first question or whatever. That cannot be avoided. A press release will have been prepared before he comes to the Building. It will take up the time allocated to whoever asks the first question. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Will that be the DUP? Mr Ford: That is OK. [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will put that on the institution group’s agenda, and it can discuss the issue. However, it will be a separate item — it will not be woven into one of the five parties’ questions, whether the Secretary of State is asked to say a few words at the start or at the end. It will not disrupt our schedule. The sponsoring party will put the first question. I will then invite other parties to ask questions in order of party strength, and I will repeat that in reverse order. That is what the economic challenges subgroup did: the first round of questions was asked in order of party strength, and the order was reversed for the second round. The difficulty with questions being asked according to party strength is that the Alliance Party may not get the opportunity to ask questions. Mr Ford: I am delighted that you are so concerned about my party, Chairman. Mrs Long: If questions are to be ordered according to party strength, does that mean that the DUP will ask a question first on the politics of policing, followed by a question on national security from Sinn Féin, or will the Secretary of State take questions in the order that was listed earlier by Ian? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Party strength will dictate who will ask the first round of questions. Mrs Long: No; I am asking about each topic. In what order will the topics be taken? The Chairman (Mr Wells): The DUP will begin, followed by Sinn Féin, and so on. Mrs Long: The debate will proceed according to party strength? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. Each party will have a maximum of 20 minutes in which to ask its questions because, even if each party’s contribution were to run over by as little as two or three minutes, the Alliance Party would lose its opportunity to ask questions on its allocated topic. Of course, that topic does not belong solely to the Alliance Party; it is the Committee’s topic. Therefore, it is important that parties try to keep within their allocated times. There will be difficulties because, obviously, we could more than fill the allocated 90 minutes — there will be no pregnant pauses or embarrassing silences — and, therefore, it will be a bit of a juggling act. Are members content with the proposed arrangements? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The structure for Monday’s meeting is reasonably well sorted out, apart from any decisions that might be made this afternoon. The next item on the agenda is the consideration of the draft report. The discussion will take place in private. A recording will be made to assist the Committee Clerks, but today’s Hansard report will not include the forthcoming discussion. The Committee met in private session from 11.11 am to 12.48 pm. On resuming — 12.48 pm The Chairman (Mr Wells): The next stage is to agree that the report be printed. Are members content? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We need to agree the motion, which will go to the Business Committee. Has that been given out? The Committee Clerk: There will be a slight change. It is the new one that we circulated and that obviously needs further slight amendment. I suggest that the last two lines should read: “calls on the Secretary of State and others to address those matters identified in the report as requiring resolution prior to restoration of the institutions.” Mr McFarland: Should that be “either resolution or further discussion”? One requires resolution; the others require further discussion. The Committee Clerk: It depends. Mr Ford: Further discussion is not prior to restoration of the institutions. Surely, the key point is the resolution before the restoration. The Committee Clerk: Either all those matters could be included or there could be a focus on the one issue that requires resolution. Mr McFarland: Technically, that is correct. As we get into talks there may be issues — they are listed at tab 2 in the pack — that change their complexion here, and some of them may well become deal-breakers. The point is that the motion allows an option for resolution. We have what we agreed; there are two other items to debate, and the matters that are deal-breakers. If we use the phrase “either resolution or further discussion”, everybody is happy with that and it covers everything. Mr Ford: For clarification, is that asking for resolution or further discussion full stop? Otherwise, we end up with contorted grammar. Mr McFarland: Yes, the reference to the parties has been dropped. Mr G Kelly: I presume, from what Naomi has proposed, that that will read through, because in the body of the report — Mr Ford: Yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are members content with the motion as amended? The Committee Clerk: I will read it out: “To address those matters identified in the report as requiring further discussion or resolution prior to restoration of the institutions.” Mrs Long: No. That would not be factually correct, because some of the issues that require further discussion do not have to take place prior to devolution. It should read: “as requiring resolution or further discussion.” Mr Ford: That was trying to avoid the ambiguity. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We need consensus on this. Are members content? Mr G Kelly: Irrespective of the wording, there is still a huge question over whether the DUP will go into the institutions. At the moment, this Assembly is a talking shop. Though we have made, some could argue, considerable progress on the issues in the Committee, the Assembly has no power. From the Sinn Féin point of view, there is no reason to go into that Assembly. I ask the DUP: does it have any intention of going into the institutions? There is no point in sitting in an Assembly that has no power to do anything with the report. I am happy that the public can see the report, but we have said clearly that we will not go into a talking shop. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We are rehearsing the previous argument we had on the economic challenges subgroup report. Mr McFarland: I will clarify this matter. Martin McGuinness raised one precondition for debates, which was that the Secretary of State provide him with an up-to-date programme between now and 24 November. As far as I am aware, Mr McGuinness has that updated version. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I do not wish to interrupt you, Alan, but we need to make a decision. Do we now go back onto the Hansard record at this stage? Members should realise that we had Hansard for the benefit for the Clerks, but we now have Hansard for the benefit of the public. We must go back to the start. Mr McFarland: Yes. Can we go back to where we started on the motion? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are members content? Members indicated assent. Mr McFarland: When the PFG Committee divided into three formats and we began to discuss this issue, Sinn Féin made it clear that if the Committee did good work over the summer it would take part in the debates and would not be found wanting. Again, we are into this completely unnecessary silliness of trying to block motions for no good reason. Martin McGuinness said previously that all he needed was an updated programme; he got an updated programme and still Sinn Féin did not turn up for the debate on the subgroup’s report. It is bad faith. All the parties, including Sinn Féin, have worked here all summer in good faith, co-operating and doing a great deal of good work in my view. Now we are back, playing fast and loose with the good relations and confidence in each other that has been building, and we are trying to destroy that again. I do not understand why Sinn Féin is doing this; I do not understand. Mr G Kelly: Let us not exaggerate the situation, Alan. You have built good contacts, but when somebody takes a different political view, you blame it on bad faith. That is a load of nonsense. We have a political view. The fact is that neither the British Secretary of State nor anyone else has put forward a plan for restoration to Martin McGuinness. It is a fair question to ask the DUP. Is this, in fact, preparation for Government, or are we going into a talking shop in the Assembly? As for blocking motions, everybody at this table knows that that does not make much of a difference, because Peter Hain will make his own decision on this, as he did on Monday. Let us not exaggerate. We have a decision, but we have not been given a plan. The DUP has given no indication at all that it will be involved in the institutions. We have said that we will not be involved in talking shops that have no authority or purpose. Mr P Robinson: It is sometimes difficult to assess Sinn Féin’s position because it changes it so often. At last Monday’s meeting, Mr McGuinness arrived with what appeared to be a prepared statement, which he put on the record. That statement indicated that, in the absence of a schedule following a meeting that he would want to have with the Secretary of State and another with the Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic, Sinn Féin would not participate in the debate on the subgroup’s report. Mr McGuinness received a four-page response to his request from the Secretary of State, setting out a schedule leading to the period in November. I assume that that is what he has been discussing with the Secretary of State, either by phone or in person. That appeared to meet the condition that he had set down. It may be that Sinn Féin is looking for assistance to get off the hook on which it has impaled itself. Everyone knows the DUP position; it has been consistent. We want devolution as soon as possible, but in the right circumstances. We are still awaiting the level of certainty that all paramilitary and criminal activity has ended for good. There are other issues also, concerning the institutions and so on, that can be resolved during the negotiations. That remains the position. None of us has been spending our summer in these Committees because we do not want devolution to be restored. We want to be ready for the time when the republican movement gets its act together and has ended its paramilitary and criminal activity for all time. We are waiting on the republican movement; it is not waiting on us. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There was a long debate along these lines when the report of the Subgroup on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland was being discussed. We got around that by having no date on the motion, and it went to the Business Committee. The debate we are now about to have was well rehearsed in the Business Committee. Quite a few members have indicated that they wish to speak. Mr S Wilson: That being the case, I have no wish to prolong this debate because I must leave. Take my name off the list of those to speak. 1.00 pm The Chairman (Mr Wells): We must make another decision. It is now 1.00 pm. We need to decide whether to postpone this afternoon’s planned meeting on institutional issues. Should we postpone that meeting and continue this debate into the afternoon? If we are to have as lengthy a debate as we had on the report of the Subgroup on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland, we will certainly not finish by 2.00 pm. Mr G Kelly: No one wants a lengthy debate. The issues have been well aired. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will give this a run around the parties and come to some conclusion. Mr Wilson has taken his name off the list. Next in order is Mr Ford, then Mr Maginness. Mr Ford: Mr Chairman, I was going to say what you have just said. Out of deference to your health, I have no desire to prolong the discussion as we have had it before. I welcome the fact that Sinn Féin has agreed the report and that it should be published. However, it is completely illogical that the party is not prepared to agree to the motion. If it will not agree, let us save the discussion and carry on. If it was premature to debate the economy previously, I am not sure at what point things cease to become premature. The ground seems to be shifting slightly. Sinn Féin wishes to dig in, having been constructive earlier in the meeting. Mr A Maginness: The usual advice for someone who is in a hole is to stop digging. Sinn Féin should stop digging. Martin McGuinness laid down only one condition on behalf of Sinn Féin: that there be a programme of work leading up to the possibility of restoration. As far as I am aware, that condition has been fulfilled, and there is no substantive excuse for Sinn Féin not to participate in a debate in the Assembly. Leaving that aside, the public want to know what their politicians have been doing and discussing over the summer about the issues in this report. They deserve to know what has been discussed and what the attitudes of the parties are to relevant issues. It is important that a debate takes place, which is a matter for the Secretary of State. Sinn Féin, acting negatively — as it is now — is blocking the opportunity for the public to hear that debate and the views of the parties in the Assembly. That is highly regrettable, and one can only hope that Sinn Féin will revisit its position. My party believes that such debates assist efforts towards restoration. Blocking or not participating in such debates will actually inhibit restoration. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Before I call Mr Kelly to speak, I wish to outline what happened to the economic challenges subgroup report, from a procedural standpoint. There was consensus that the report be printed, which enabled the report to be sent to Members. There followed a quite lengthy debate on a motion to go to the Business Committee, which was agreed by consensus. The motion went to the Business Committee, and the two Sinn Féin Members on that Committee made it clear that the party would not be attending the debate, and that they were not very happy with the motion going forward. There was a four-to-one split in the Business Committee. If we do not reach that stage today, we will be left with a report that will be printed and distributed to Members, but goes nowhere. The only remaining option will be for the Secretary of State to step in and instruct the Assembly to debate the report. I just wanted to remind members of what happened last time. If we can get to the stage that was reached on the economic challenges subgroup report — that it went to the Business Committee for discussion — we can then consider the mechanics of what happens after that. Mr G Kelly: For the record, Sinn Féin is not in a hole and is not digging. As we discussed earlier, the single impediment to restoring the institutions is the one stipulated by the DUP, not by us. We want the institutions up and running tomorrow. The institutions should be operating and so should the Assembly — instead of the Hain Assembly, which is what exists now. If there is a way of moving this report forward, because work has been done, let us discuss that, as the Chairman described earlier. Let us have a discussion about that matter, rather than a circular argument on what Sinn Féin is, or is not, doing. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is there consensus on the motion? No specific date is mentioned; the motion simply stipulates that we refer the report. Mr McFarland: Sinn Féin has explained its position, and the party was sensible last time in explaining its position. Sinn Féin agreed the motion as one attached to the report, which did not prevent that party from taking a view on whether there should be a debate in the Assembly. That position did not interfere with the normal outworking of the Committee’s work. There would be a constitutional crisis of sorts if we produce reports but cannot produce motions to go with them. Whether reports are debated is a matter for argument. We adopted quite a pragmatic approach last time in agreeing the report and the motion on their individual merits, followed by a discussion on whether there should be a debate. That was kept as a separate issue, so it did not interfere with the Committee’s integrity in producing a report and a motion. That seemed to be a very sensible way forward and got everyone out of what would have been a complicated situation. Mr G Kelly: I am open to repeating that. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do we have consensus on the motion with no date attached? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We now have a motion to go to the Business Committee, so that is progress. The report will now be printed, but there will be a strict embargo until it is debated in the Assembly. Of course, the issue will come before the Business Committee, and we may need to check the mechanics of what happens now. Nothing has been slotted in for next week, and the Business Committee could be minded to debate our report. It would be feasible for the report to be printed and delivered to Members on Friday for possible debate next Tuesday or Wednesday. However, that will not allow us to include the Hansard report of the Secretary of State’s contribution next Monday. Members can see the difficulties. We will be meeting the Secretary of State at 10.00 am on Monday. Obviously, there is no way in which we can have the Hansard report printed and included in the Committee’s report for debate on Tuesday or Wednesday. However, it will, of course, be available to Members — at least we assume that Members will have it — by 11.00 am on Tuesday. Mr McFarland: Hansard reported today on the debate held yesterday, so, although next Monday’s Hansard may not be included in the Committee’s report, as long as Members have the Hansard report in their hands that morning, that would be all right. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The other difficulty is that the Secretary of State will not have had time to correct anything that he has said, so it would be an uncorrected version. The normal convention is that a witness, particularly someone such as the Secretary of State, would have an opportunity to amend what he has said to a Committee. Mr McFarland: The draft could be faxed through to him at 9.00 am the next day, and if there is anything major that he would disagree with, we would be aware of it in time for the debate at 10.30 am. The Chairman (Mr Wells): As the meeting will be televised, what the Secretary of State says will be in the public domain already. If members are minded to proceed on that basis, the Business Committee has indicated that it will have a special meeting to authorise the calling of an Assembly debate. I realise that some members feel that there should not be a debate at all, but I am just going through the mechanics. I was at the Business Committee meeting on Tuesday, and it indicated that if we went down this route, it would call a meeting. Mr McFarland: On Tuesday? The Chairman (Mr Wells): No, it would be a meeting to enable a debate to take place on Tuesday, or Wednesday, or whenever. How do members feel about that? In the absence of that, there would be no business next week because the Secretary of State has indicated very clearly that he is not minded to allow one of the ordinary early day motions to be considered. Mr McFarland: We had this discussion last week. We have a tight timescale, and the logic is that we have debates on Monday and Tuesday or Tuesday and Wednesday, but we must keep up to speed. The last topic, institutional issues, is due for debate on 3 and 4 October. We may have a week to play about with, because there is talk of putting the October Scotland stuff back. Last time, my thoughts were that we should use the time available and keep up the pressure. If we have a problem with one of the other reports later, we may be glad that we bought some time here. Therefore, we should try to encourage a debate on this issue next week. It will then be out of the way, and we will then have two issues left. Mr Kennedy: Given that the session with the Secretary of State is relatively early next Monday morning, is there any possibility that Hansard could turn that round very quickly? Confirming accuracy and obtaining the Secretary of State’s approval would make it more than a draft. When it is put into Members’ pigeonholes on Tuesday it would be a proper Hansard report. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is a pretty tall order. I will need to check with the Editor of Debates. This issue is one of semantics, in a way, because it is a live-broadcast contribution, and he cannot correct something that has gone out on television. It is not a normal situation. Mr P Robinson: It will not have any bearing on the report, as that will be agreed by the PFG Committee before the Secretary of State has spoken. It should be attached to the report. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Members are not particularly exercised by that issue. It is just an unusual way of doing things. Mr Ford: This whole Assembly is unusual. Mr P Robinson: The unusual is the usual. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It will not be an annex to the report. The initial intention was that it would be. Mr P Robinson: Could the Hansard report not be included as an annex? For instance, where annex G should be, a sheet could be inserted to say that the Hansard report will be issued separately? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Would that get round the problem? The Committee Clerk: Are members content that the annex will be ready after the debate? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That has squared the circle. The issue is now whether members are content that that is the way forward. Do we refer the matter to the Business Committee so that it can decide — which I think that it will — to hold an emergency meeting, at which those who feel that the matter should not be debated at all will have a chance to have their say? Is that the way forward out of that logjam? The Clerks will inform the Business Committee, and those of you who are members of that Committee can expect to receive a call. I omitted at the start of the meeting, as we had only a small turnout, to check for deputies and take apologies. Ian Paisley Jnr is representing himself, Peter Robinson is deputising for Lord Morrow, and Sammy Wilson is deputising for William McCrea. Mr McFarland: Mr Cobain is deputising for Mr McNarry. Mr Ford: For the DUP’s purposes, I was doing Naomi this week and she was doing me. [Laughter.] Mr G Kelly: You did it very well. The Chairman (Mr Wells): What was the line-up for the SDLP? Mr A Maginness: Mark Durkan and Seán Farren. Mr G Kelly: Raymond McCartney is deputising for Michelle Gildernew and Fra McCann for Martin McGuinness. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Sorry about that. We only just had a quorum at the start of the meeting. There is one other item regarding the report. The minutes of today’s meeting will be bound in the report, so we will not have the opportunity to bring those back. The two Chairmen will check the minutes and sign off on them, and they will be included without being referred back to the Committee. That is standard practice; we did the same with the economic challenges subgroup report. Are members content for the same practice to apply here? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The press notice has been amended and is now down to the bones. Are members happy enough to agree that without seeing it? Members indicated assent. Mr G Kelly: A while ago, was there not a request for documentation on the protocols between the Policing Board and the PSNI? I do not remember those documents being brought forward. The Committee Clerk: They were not. The NIO indicated that the protocols were not completed. Mr G Kelly: Was there a letter about it? The Committee Clerk: It is in the members’ pack. All letters and correspondence between the Secretary of State and the Committee are included. Mr G Kelly: So, in effect, the NIO has said no. Mr Ford: Presumably the staff will amend the front sheet of that pack to reflect the five areas of questioning, as opposed to the current layout. The Committee Clerk: You have the pack. Do you want that issued separately? Mr Ford: It would be useful to have a list of the five issues in order, so that everyone knows what they are before we go into the meeting. The Committee Clerk: The best way to do that is to circulate the letter that goes to the Secretary of State. 1.15 pm The Chairman (Mr Wells): I remind members that we will gather at 9.45 am on Monday in the Senate Chamber in private session to arrange the last bits and pieces for the Secretary of State’s visit. Mr McFarland: Chairman, will you be here for this afternoon’s meeting of the PFG Committee dealing with institutional issues? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. I solved the problem and will be here this afternoon. Mr McFarland: Will the meeting start at 2.00 pm? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. Adjourned at 1.16 pm. |