Ad Hoc Committee on the Procedural Consequences of Devolution

Minutes of Proceedings

Friday 25 September 1998 at 10.30am

In Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mr A McFarland - Chairman

Mr R Empey

Mr D Hussey

Mr A Maginness

Mr S Farren (representing Mr E McGrady MP)

Ms C Hanna

Mr T Gallagher

Rev W McCrea

Mr S Wilson

Mr I Paisley Jnr

Mr G McHugh

Ms M Nelis

Mr S Close

Mr C Wilson(representing Mr R McCartney QC MP)

Ms J Morrice

In attendance:Mr J Reynolds

Item 1 onlyMr S James (Cabinet Office)

1. The Chairman introduced Mr S James and, with the permission of the Committee, invited him to make a presentation on the issues which were under consideration within the Cabinet Office regarding the procedural consequences of devolution. The Chairman explained that this would be an informal briefing and asked that its contents remain confidential to the Committee.

Informal Briefing

2. Mr James outlined the background to the considerations. He noted that elections to the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament were due next May. However greater urgency was being given to the consequences of devolution on foot of the Procedure Committee's request for input. He expected that the Leader of the House, Mrs Beckett, would submit a written response by the deadline of 9 October and offer oral evidence to the Committee by Christmas. Mr James noted that the Bill establishing the Northern Ireland Assembly provided scope for it to debate reserved and excepted matters but did not specify how the Assembly would conduct its business.

Historical Background

3. Mr James rehearsed the practice of Westminster during the period of the Parliament at Stormont pre-1972. During that time Westminster convention prevented questions on devolved matters being raised in the House of Commons. Debates on Northern Ireland issues were only allowed at the Speaker's discretion. The Select Committee system did not operate in its present terms before 1979.

Proposed Arrangements

4. Based on these precedents, the Government is likely to re-introduce similar arrangements following devolution. However a number of areas are less clear cut. Whilst Select Committees are likely to respect the convention of leaving devolved matters to the Northern Ireland Assembly, it is unclear how or if the work of the Grand Committee will be modified. Private Members' Bills are another area of difficulty. The role of the Public Accounts Committee is also ambiguous given that the Assembly will probably have its own scrutiny arrangements whilst the Secretary of State retains responsibility for the Block Grant. Finally the role of the House of Lords with regard to Northern Ireland matters remains unclear, not least because the Lords has less obvious procedures for any of its business.
   
   
5. Mr James offered to arrange a visit from a member of staff in the EU Secretariat. He suggested that it was most likely that Westminster would adopt a practice of copying EU documents directly to each of the devolved legislatures for comment. However it would be for each of the legislatures to consider local arrangements. He understood that the Government would aim to include the views of the devolved legislatures in its negotiations with Brussels. However each of the regions could also liaise directly with the European Commission. If necessary, the Government would apply for leave to allow the regions to submit a response, after the deadline if necessary, to proposals which had a particular significance in a region and where the stated deadline was problematic. However it had to be recognised that the Commission, rather than the UK Government, had control of this situation.
6. In response to questions from the Committee, Mr James explained that:

• precedent offered a starting point in the considerations of best practice but could not be binding;
• theoretically the situation was devolved rather than federal and that the autonomy of the Northern Ireland, Scottish and Welsh legislatures remained in the gift of Westminster;
• the Joint Ministerial Council had entered the equation from late July, as a means of resolving UK wide issues before they became subjects of controversy;
• Concordats between the various legislatures and on European practice were likely to be produced later in the year but would not form part of the legislative base for the Assembly.

1. Mr Maginness expressed concern that a 'self-denying ordinance' at Westminster could create circumstances similar to the 1960s, wherein the Parliament of the UK mistakenly ignored a number of issues which could only be resolved by UK Parliamentary intervention.
2. Mr Farren sought clarification on the role of the Secretary of State. It was unclear how a Secretary of State could discharge his responsibilities without infringing the autonomy of the Assembly. The Chairman asked about the conflict this could create in providing for adequate financial scrutiny arrangements without creating duplication. Mr James offered to consider the financial scrutiny issues and write to the Committee.
3. The Chairman thanked Mr James for his presentation. The Committee agreed to accept the offer of further briefing especially on European and financial scrutiny issues. Mr James left the meeting.

Minutes of the previous meeting - accuracy

4. Mr McCrea challenged the wording of the final sentence of paragraph 8 and asked for clarification of the second sentence in paragraph 15. It was agreed that the penultimate sentence of paragraph 8 should be amended by adding the words "including Dail Eireann." and the final sentence of paragraph 8 should be deleted. It was also agreed that the second sentence of paragraph 15 should be amended to make it clear that it referred to Private Members' Bills. With these corrections the Minutes were accepted as a true record.

Matters Arising

5. Mr Maginness explained that the SDLP's absence from the first meeting represented no discourtesy to the Committee, merely a delay in confirming the Party's nominees to the Committee. However he was disappointed that this had not been drawn to the Committee's attention, nor had the SDLP's application for an adjournment until it could be represented. Finally, without rancour, he expressed his Party's wish to reserve its position with regard to those matters which the Committee had agreed at its first meeting. The Chairman thanked Mr Maginness for his explanation. He explained that an adjournment would have severely hampered the Committee's ability to meet the deadline imposed by the Assembly. Secondly he suggested that whilst ordinarily he would not ask the Committee to review earlier decisions, he would seek the Committee's confirmation of the decisions taken at the first meeting before the Committee's report would be completed. Mr McFarland then outlined his view of the revised timetable:

• Working meeting of the Committee on Tuesday 29 September;
• Drafting and decision making meeting on Friday 2 October;
• Report to the Assembly by close on Friday 2 October;
• Formal submission to the Assembly at a plenary meeting on Wednesday 7 October.

1. Mr Empey expressed concern about the implications of paragraph 13 of the Minutes. He contended that Parliament would seek full scrutiny rights so long as it continued to Vote moneys to Northern Ireland. The Chairman agreed that Westminster would seek to retain its scrutiny of public expenditure but suggested that the avoidance of duplication could mean that NIAO and a local Committee of Public Accounts could reduce the practical involvement of bodies outside Northern Ireland, without prejudice to the rights of Parliament.
2. Following discussion it was AGREED that the Committee would seek to confirm the level of scrutiny which would be appropriate but would also aim to establish efficient arrangements which avoided unnecessary duplication. Members also sought further advice on how these arrangements might work. Mr Close expressed concern lest scrutiny of financial practices should be allowed to interfere with the Assembly's right to determine policies for Northern Ireland particularly where such policies might differ from the wishes of the Government at Westminster. Mr Paisley also raised his concern about how the Assembly would be funded and about the extent to which this would be controlled by Westminster. The Chairman noted the points raised and agreed that these should be considered in the light of advice from those currently with responsibility for these matters.

Mr C Wilson joined the meeting.

3. The Chairman expressed his concern about how EU business would be referred to the Assembly. He suggested that this was a matter which ought to be raised on the Committee's Report as significant for the Assembly as a body, but beyond the Committee's remit. Mr Empey pointed to the role of Westminster, as described in the Agreement, in ensuring compliance with international obligations. Mr Paisley suggested that the Committee should make recommendations on the type of arrangements which would be most beneficial to Northern Ireland's interests. He suggested that the role of the UK Permanent Representative in Brussels and the role of the EU Secretariat in the Cabinet Office and their relationships with the Assembly, were issues for consideration.
4. It was AGREED that the Committee would seek clarification on these issues from the Cabinet Office's EU Secretariat at its next meeting.

Any other business

5. The Chairman sought, and was granted, the Committee's approval to forward a text to the Press Office on the Committee's terms of reference, membership, date of meetings and work to date, for publication on the Assembly's website.

Date and time of Next Meeting

6. It was AGREED that, subject to the arrangements for a further presentation from the Cabinet Office, that the Committee would meet on Tuesday 29 September at 10.30 am (or if necessary 2.00pm) and that it would meet on Friday 2 October at 10.30am.

"The government intend that all the devolved administrations should be as fully involved as possible in discussions with the UK Government about the formulation of their policies on all issues which touch on devolved matters. Indeed, a great deal of thought has been given to how the UK Government and the devolved administrations should interact on matters of communal interest.

The Government intend that there should be standing arrangements for the devolved administrations to be involved by the UK Government at ministerial level when they consider reserved matters which impinge on devolved responsibilities. It is envisaged that this would be achieved through the establishment of a joint ministerial committee of which the UK Government and the devolved administrations would be members. The joint ministerial committee will be an entirely consultative body, supported by a committee of officials and joint secretariat. Further details of the standing arrangements will be announced later. Where there is agreement between the parties that it should do so, the JMC could also discuss the treatment of devolved matters in the different parts of the UK.

These standing arrangements will run in parallel with and underpin the bilateral concordats between the Scottish executive and departments in the UK Government. These arrangements would be non-statutory. The Scottish executive cannot, of course, be committed in advance to any particular form of liaison. That said, however, the UK Government believe that there will be strong mutual benefits from such liaison arrangements and we would expect the devolved administrations to recognise this also. The Government believe that these non-statutory arrangements, together with the provisions in the devolution Bills, will enable the United Kingdom to work more effectively in future, giving due and appropriate weight to each of its main components.

There will be one joint ministerial committee [but] representation will vary according to the specific issues under consideration. Fisheries Ministers would be involved on fisheries matters, for example ... The detailed arrangements are still being developed and will be announced later this year."