Ad Hoc Committee on the Procedural Consequences of Devolution

Minutes of Proceedings

Thursday 8 October 1998 at 10.30am

In The Members' Dining Room, Parliament Buildings

Present:

In attendance:Mr J Reynolds

1. The Chairman welcomed Mr Wells and Mr O'Neill to the meeting. He also reported that Mr Bell and Mr McClarty would be replacing Mr Empey and Mr Taylor on the Committee and that Mr Watson had been nominated to represent the UUAP.

Chairman's Business

2. The Chairman noted concern about the organisation of the Committee's business and suggested that the Committee should agree to a regular diary slot for meetings of the Committee. Mr McCartney expressed regret that Mr Taylor had withdrawn and that Mr McGrady had not attended meetings to date. He suggested that the Committee would benefit greatly from their parliamentary experience. Mr McCartney also queried whether the Committee could make progress when substitutes were attending regularly, particularly on the part of the larger parties. He also noted that Commons sittings would resume from next week and this would make it difficult for him to attend on Wednesdays or Thursdays. After further discussion it was AGREED that the Committee would aim to meet on Fridays at 10.30am. A second weekly meeting was not considered necessary.

Minutes of the Meeting and Matters Arising

3. The Chairman asked for the Committee's agreement to have copies of the minutes of meetings placed in the Library. Mr McCrea outlined how such an arrangement would provide the Committee with a platform for informing other Members of the Assembly on how the Committee was taking forward its task. It was AGREED that the minutes of Committee meetings would be placed in the Library.
4. On the proposal of Mr S Wilson, seconded by Mr Gallagher, the minutes of the previous meeting, which had been circulated, were AGREED as a true record.
5. Under Matters Arising, Mr McCartney asked for clarification about the agreement for a 'self-denying ordinance' to which Mr Maginness had referred during the Assembly debate on the Interim Report. The Chairman explained that this agreement had been reached informally at the close of the Committee's previous meeting and that it had been recognised that such an arrangement would be subject to the agreement of parties not present at that time. On this basis it had not been officially recorded in the minutes. There was further discussion about this issue. The Chairman proposed to close the matter by undertaking to signify the formal closure of this and all future meetings.

Plan of Action to produce a Report

6. The Chairman set out the work of the Committee to date and described some of the difficulties which the Committee faced in trying to clarify:

• the content of the NI Bill,
• the proposed Standing Orders of the Assembly,
• the relationship between Westminster and devolved legislatures in Scotland and Wales and
• the position of a devolved Assembly relative to the European Parliament and bodies governing the interests of the constituent parts of the British Isles.

1. Mr Wilson suggested that some of the procedural issues did not depend on finding a

resolution to the difficulties outlined by the Chairman. He argued that undue regard was being given to the European aspect of the Committee's remit. Other members noted the strategic importance of Europe particularly with regard to agricultural issues.

[At 11.22am Mr Wells left the meeting.]

2. Ms Nelis pointed out that the Agreement dealt with the handling of European matters through the North/South Ministerial Council (at Page 11 para 33). Mr Ervine queried how this would impact on the procedures at Westminster. Mr McCartney suggested that it was a procedural issue as only Member States could formally conduct business through the Council of Ministers. The Assembly would therefore need to clarify its relationship through Westminster with Brussels.
3. The Chairman pointed out that there was a difference between procedures at Westminster and the conduct of government through ministerial offices. He suggested that arrangements for the latter were not within the remit of the Committee. Mr O'Neill pointed out that the issue of representation at Brussels, whether through Westminster or not, was an important issue which needed clarification. He pointed to the possibility of cross-border bodies impacting on Europe on an all-island basis. He asked what the relevance of this would be for Westminster procedures. Mr Maginness pointed to the danger of looking at intergovernmental relations rather than relations with the UK Parliament. The role of the Joint Ministerial Conference had still to be clarified but it was clear that further advice on the mechanics of preparing European legislation was also necessary. Mr Close recalled the briefings given by Mr James and the paper from the Scottish Consultative Group which he commended to Members.
4. Mr McCrea stressed the importance of focusing on the remit given by the Assembly. Mr Wilson suggested that the Procedure Committee should be asked for an input to the Committee's deliberations. Mr McElduff agreed with holding to the remit. He also suggested that this should reflect the commitments in the Agreement particularly in regard to the role of the North/South Council on developing a view on European matters. Mr McCartney supported Mr Wilson's suggestion of asking the Procedure Committee for its view but queried the cross-border implications. He argued that the Assembly could not expect a financial subvention form Westminster whilst maintaining the right to develop policies unilaterally or in conjunction with the Irish Government according to individual circumstances.
5. The Chairman concluded the discussion by suggesting that the Committee had considered the matter fully and that the discussion provided the basis for taking forward the planning of the Report. He suggested that he and the Secretariat would commence work on initial drafts to consider the issues raised by the Procedure Committee's Press Notice. This would provide a basis for further discussion and reactions from the Committee.
6. The Committee also agreed to seek evidence on the implications of dealing with European matters.
7. The Chairman expressed a preference for working towards a Report to establish key principles of the relationship with Westminster rather than detailed recommendations on the modification of practice. He also suggested that the Committee should seek to reserve the right to review the Assembly's position after a period of executive devolution. The Committee indicated its agreement to this approach.

[At 11.57am Mr Bell, Ms Morrice and Mr McCrea left the meeting.]

DFP Memorandum

8. The Chairman noted the paper which had been forwarded by DFP on their anticipation of financial scrutiny arrangements post-devolution. He noted the reference to a PAC for Northern Ireland even though this had not yet been proposed to Parliament.

Date of Next Meeting

9. The Committee agreed to meet again on Friday 16 October at 10.30am. The meeting closed at 11.58am