COMMITTEE ON THE Monday 18 September 2006 Members in attendance for all or part of proceedings: The Committee met at 2.33 pm. (The Chairman (Mr Wells) in the Chair.) The Chairman (Mr Wells): I remind Members to switch off their mobile phones. Can we make a note of the members who are attending? Dr McCrea: I am standing in for Ian Paisley Jnr. Mr P Robinson: I am standing in for Lord Morrow. Mr McFarland: I am expecting Mr McGimpsey to stand in for Mr McNarry, but I am not sure when he will arrive. Mrs Long: Kieran McCarthy is replacing David Ford. Mr P J Bradley: I am standing in for Mark Durkan. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Will a third SDLP member be present? Mr P J Bradley: I do not think so. There might not even be two of us present. Mr Murphy: I am standing in for Martin McGuinness. There will be no other Sinn Féin representatives. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The minutes of the meeting that was held on 13 September are among members’ papers. Mr Kennedy: Reference is made to the term “UUPAG”, but the Speaker has ruled out the use of that term. Mr P Robinson: Just because the Speaker does not recognise it does not stop Mr Kennedy from doing so. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do you wish to participate as the UUUP from now on? Mr McFarland: No, we do not. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am sorry; the UUP? Mr McFarland: We have no option. The Speaker has ruled that for the purposes of the Assembly, the UUPAG does not exist. We have had to revert to what we were previously. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Committee will accept that protocol from now on. The next item on the agenda is consideration of the draft report on institutional issues. The Committee shall continue in private session but will go into public session when it agrees the report. The Committee met in private session from 2.36 pm to 5.52 pm. On resuming — 5.52 pm The Chairman (Mr Wells): I chaired the last meeting of the economic subgroup, when it discussed its report, and we ran into a problem with the quorum. One member left the subgroup during the evidence session, and that meant that the subgroup had to stop taking evidence. The subgroup has asked permission from the PFG Committee to reduce the quorum to five members, with a requirement for one member from each party to be present. That would be a much more manageable way to deal with the situation. The demands on members’ time attending plenary and other meetings makes it harder to keep to the quorum. However, if the subgroup was to have five members present, but those members did not represent every party, it would not have a quorum. Are members content with the suggested change? Mr Murphy: The five members would consist of one member from each party. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are members content? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Committee has received a letter from the Speaker and I would like to put it on the agenda for the meeting on Monday week. The letter states: “At a meeting of the Business Committee on 14 September, there was agreement, by four of the five parties represented, to a proposal that the PFG should be asked to address the issue of the forthcoming budget for Northern Ireland (an announcement on which is expected in December) and to bring forward plans to allow the Assembly to debate budgetary issues at an early date.” I admire the Speaker’s optimism. The Committee has been asked to look at budgetary issues and to make recommendations. There are two ways to deal with that: the PFG Committee could deal it with, or it could be referred to the Subgroup on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland. Another option would be to agree to not get involved at all. Mr McFarland: The Budget is an entirely different issue. The Committee was set up to scope the issues of devolution, and it is coming to a logical conclusion with its reports going forward to the talks in October. The economic subgroup was set up to look at the specific issues of the economic challenges facing Northern Ireland. The Committee should have a debate on the issue. It has been asked to operate as a Committee of the Assembly to examine the Budget, as the Executive might have done, presumably with a view to either agreeing or not agreeing the Budget so that the Government could implement it in March or April 2007. That is a different issue, and members may need to consult with their parties outside this forum, and have some discussion as to where the PFG Committee goes after it has finished its work. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr McFarland, are you saying that the issue should not be discussed in this Committee or in the economic subgroup? Mr McFarland: No. There is some neuralgia about what this Committee is or is not doing. It was set up for a specific purpose. If the Secretary of State changed the Committee’s remit to examine the Budget, would all parties sit round the table in good faith and examine the Budget with a view to debating it in the Assembly, and its going forward into the Programme for Government? If the parties are not prepared to do that, sitting closeted in here two or three times a week for another three months with no end result, because members are still playing with it, would be quite ambitious for the Committee. Mrs Long: It does not fit with the remit of the economic subgroup. That would mean discussing the Budget, rather than impediments to the economy, and that is slightly different. This issue was raised at several Committee meetings and there was concern that if there were to be devolution in November, any Administration would be lumbered with a Budget that was already fairly far developed and would, therefore, constrain any future Executive. This is a matter that individual parties should take forward, rather than one on which this Committee should necessarily reach consensus. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I was not present at that meeting of the Business Committee. I would love to know what was behind that suggestion. Mr Murphy: I am loath to say that the proposal was not that well thought out, but it was simply thrown into the melting pot, without notice. I am not sure what detailed consideration of budgetary issues would involve. Most people feel that what has happened is that rather than being ruled out by the Business Committee, which is not really the vehicle for considering that type of matter, it was decided to let the PFG Committee have its view on the Budget. We will not rush into that, because it involves a significant departure from the sort of work in which the PFG Committee has been engaged. I do not wish to be critical of the Member who introduced the proposal, but I am not sure that its implications were carefully thought through. Dr Farren: The Budget would certainly require urgent discussion if the imminence of restoration was such that we would find ourselves having to finalise it. During the period of devolution, the final budgetary discussions took place in December, and I assume that the timetable remains the same, although it is currently up to the Minister to sign off on the Budget without any public discussion. I do not consider restoration to be likely at the moment, unless there is a rush of excitement to the head. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is difficult to see how a PFG Committee could exist in December. By then, either there will either be full-blooded devolution, which means no PFG Committee, or we will be standing, as do many others, in the queue at our local social security offices. I cannot see how this proposal was thought through. Dr Farren: PFG would then stand for Programme for Government. Mr McFarland: Absolutely, yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): What do members feel? Will we simply report back to the Business Committee that budgetary issues should be taken forward by the parties, rather than by this Committee? Mr McFarland: At the start of the summer, we discussed whether there was any merit in considering different aspects of a Programme for Government, and the word around the room was that that was a matter for the Executive. Parties need to discuss budgetary issues. Mrs Long: It is not a matter for this Committee. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do we agree that it is not a matter for this Committee? Mr Murphy: Simply note that. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is there consensus that we simply note that and take it no further? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There is one further technical issue. The equality strand of this Committee met on Friday and has no plans to meet again. There is a set of minutes from that meeting of 15 September that must be ratified because there are no further meetings. Are members content that, as no date has been set for further meetings, we must simply accept that there is no mechanism to agree those minutes? Mr P Robinson: I am sure that there is a mechanism. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes, I was going to ask whether there is a situation by which the two Chairmen can sign off the minutes or bring them back here. Mr P Robinson: That group does not meet as a separate entity; it meets as a strand of the PFG Committee, so we must agree its minutes. Mr McFarland: That is why I said to you earlier, Chairman, that if it is the will of that strand of the PFG Committee to produce a final draft of its report, in the same way that we will produce a final draft of our report, at least that would result in something for members to consider, even though the report will be issued only to the members of the Committee. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The minutes can be handed out here or tabled for consideration. Mr Murphy: The difficulty in agreeing the minutes now is that I was not at the meeting. Mr Paisley Jnr: I have to leave, which affects the quorum. Adjourned at 6.01 pm. |